HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-04-14 Committee of the Whole Agenda and Reports.pdfDistrict of Maple Ridge
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA
April 14, 2014
1:00 p.m.
Council Chamber
Committee of the Whole is the initial venue for review of issues. No voting
takes place on bylaws or resolutions. A decision is made to send an item to
Council for debate and vote or to send an item back to staff for more
information or clarification before proceeding to Council.
Note: If required, there will be a 15 -minute break at 3:00 p.m.
Chair Acting Mayor
1. DELEGAT/ONS/STAFFPRESENTAT/ONS- (10 minutes each)
1:00 p.m.
1.1 Ridge Meadows Recycling Society Update
• Kim Day, Executive Director
1.2 Ron McNutt, Canadians for Safe Technology Local Riding Representative
• Health Aspects of Shaw Communication WiFi
1.3 Maple Ridge Cemetery Update
• Sylvia Pendl, Park Planning Technician
2. PUBL/C WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT SERV/CES
Note: Owners and/or Agents of Development Applications may be permitted
to speak to their applications with a time limit of 10 minutes.
Note: The following items have been numbered to correspond with the Council
Agenda:
Committee of the Whole Agenda
April 14, 2014
Page 2 of 4
1101 2013-052-RZ, 23227 Dogwood Avenue Housing Agreement Bylaw No. 7004-
2013, 23227 Dogwood Avenue
Staff report dated April 14, 2014 recommending that 23227 Dogwood
Avenue Housing Agreement Bylaw No. 7004-2013 be given first, second and
third readings.
1102 2014-014-RZ, 13316 235 Street, RS -3 to R-1 and RS -1b
Staff report dated April 14, 2014 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone
Amending Bylaw No. 7071-2014 to rezone from RS -3 (One Family Rural
Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) and RS -1b (One Family Urban
[Medium Density] Residential) to permit 5 fee simple lots zoned RS -1b and 8
bare land strata lots zoned R-1 be given first reading and that the applicant
provide further information as described on Schedules B and G of the
Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, along with the information
required for a Subdivision application.
1103 2013-082-RZ, 13260 236 Street, RS -3 and RS -2 to RM -1
Staff report dated April 14, 2014 recommending that second reading of
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7037-2013 as amended to rezone
from RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS -2 (One Family Suburban
Residential) to RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) to permit 61 townhouse units
be given second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing.
1104 2011-019-RZ, 10515 and 10595 240 Street and 23950 Zeron Avenue, First
Extension
Staff report dated April 14, 2014 recommending that a one year extension be
granted for rezoning application 2011-019-RZ to permit construction of 48
townhouse units under the RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) zone.
1105 Municipal Equipment Purchase, One Single Axle Recycle Truck
Staff report dated April 14, 2014 recommending that the contract for the
purchase of one single axle recycling truck be awarded to Fort Fabrication and
Welding Ltd. and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the
contract.
1106 Excess Capacity/Extended Services Agreement LC 156/14, Bosonworth
Avenue and Carmichael Street
Staff report dated April 14, 2014 recommending that the Corporate Officer be
authorized to sign and seal Excess Capacity Latecomer Agreement LC
156/14.
Committee of the Whole Agenda
April 14, 2014
Page 3 of 4
3. FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE SERV/CES (including Fire and Police)
1131 Disbursements for the month ended March 31, 2014
Staff report dated April 14, 2014 recommending that the disbursements for
the month ended March 31, 2014 be approved.
1132 2013 Consolidated Financial Statements
Staff report dated April 14, 2014 recommending that the 2013 Consolidated
Financial Statements be accepted.
1133 2015-2019 Business Planning Process
Staff report dated April 14, 2014 recommending that the Business Planning
Framework timelines be adjusted.
1134 2014 Council Expenses
Staff report dated April 14, 2014 providing Council expenses for 2014
updated to the end of March 2014.
1135 Review of Telecom Tower Protocols and Recommended Changes
Staff report dated April 14, 2014 recommending changes to the
Telecommunications Tower Siting Protocols applicable to tower building
activities in Maple Ridge.
1136 Tax Rates Bylaws - Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District and Albion Dyking
District
Staff report dated April 14, 2014 recommending that Road 13 Dyking District
Tax Rates Bylaw No. 7079-2014 be given first, second and third readings and
that Albion Dyking District Tax Rates Bylaw No. 7080-2014 be given first,
second and third readings.
4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION SERV/CES
1151 Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS) Funding
Staff report dated April 14, 2014 recommending that a letter be written
expressing concerns with the implementation of a Housing First model.
5. CORRESPONDENCE
1171
Committee of the Whole Agenda
April 14, 2014
Page 4 of 4
6. OTHER ISSUES
1181
7. ADJOURNMENT
8. COMMUNITY FORUM
COMMUNITY FORUM
The Community Forum provides the public with an opportunity to ask questions of
Council on items that are of concern to them, with the exception of Public Hearing
by-laws that have not yet reached conclusion.
Council will not tolerate any derogatory remarks directed at Council or staff
members.
Each person will be permitted 2 minutes to speak or ask questions (a second
opportunity is permitted if no one else is sitting in the chairs in front of the
podium). Questions must be directed to the Chair of the meeting and not to the
individual members of Council. The total time for this Forum is limited to 15
minutes.
If a question cannot be answered, the speaker will be advised when and how a
response will be given.
Other opportunities are available to address Council including public hearings and
delegations. The public may also make their views known to Council by writing or
via email and by attending open houses, workshops and information meetings.
Serving on an Advisory Committee is an excellent way to have a voice in the future
of this community.
For more information on these opportunities contact:
Clerk's Department at 604-463-5221 or clerks@mapleridge.ca
Mayor and Council at mayorandcouncil@mapleridge.ca
Checked by:
Date:
4
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columbia
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 14, 2014
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2013-052-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: First, Second, and Third Reading
23227 Dogwood Avenue Housing Agreement Bylaw No. 7004 - 2013
23227 Dogwood Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The subject property, located at 23227 Dogwood Avenue (see Appendix A), is subject to a text
amendment to the C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) zone, under application 2013-052-RZ. The site
specific text amendment is being proposed to accommodate dwelling units in excess of the one
accessory dwelling unit normally permitted in the C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) zone, and for an
increase in density for the residential and commercial units. A condition of the zoning application is
that these dwelling units would be rental units in perpetuity.
To authorize the District to enter into a Housing Agreement, the attached authorizing bylaw (see
Apendix B) is being brought forward to Council for first, second and third reading. A Public Hearing is
not required. Once the other terms and conditions of application 2013-052-RZ are fulfillled by the
applicant, this Housing Agreement bylaw will be brought forward for final reading at the same
meeting as the final reading for Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7003 - 2013.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That 23227 Dogwood Avenue Housing Agreement Bylaw No. 7004 - 2013 be given first, second
and third reading.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant:
Owner:
David Ho
Beta Enterprises Ltd.
Legal Description: Lot 1, Section 28, Township 12, New Westminster District Plan LMP46534,
Except: Plan BCP39158
OCP:
Existing: Commercial
Proposed: Commercial
Zoning:
Existing: C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial)
Proposed: C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial)
1101
Surrounding Uses:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Use:
Zone:
Designation:
Use:
Zone:
Designation:
Use:
Zone:
Designation:
Use:
Zone:
Designation:
Existing Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Access:
Site Area:
Servicing:
Companion Applications:
b) Description:
Residential
RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Estate Suburban Residential
Pub and Liquor Store
CS -1 (Service Commercial)
Commercial and Estate Suburban Residential
Residential
RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Estate Suburban Residential
Residential (Strata)
RG -2 (Residential Strata) and RS -2 (One Family
Suburban Residential)
Estate Suburban Residential
Vacant
Five commercial rental units and five rental housing
units for the C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) zone
Dogwood Avenue
1758 m2
Urban
VP/080/08 and 2012 -062 -DP
Under Section 905 of the Local Government Act, the District may enter into Housing Agreements.
These agreements may include terms and conditions agreed to by the District and a land owner
regarding the occupancy of the housing units identified in such agreements, including the form of
tenure of the housing units. Authorization to enter such agreements requires an authorizing bylaw.
The subject property is being developed to accommodate a two storey mixed-use building. A site
specific text amendment is being proposed to accommodate dwelling units in excess of the one
accessory dwelling normally permitted in the C-1(Neighbourhood Commercial) zone and for an
increase in density for the residential and commercial units. A condition of the text amendment
application is that these dwelling units would be rental units in perpetuity. This is consistent with
Policy 3-32 of the Official Community Plan which states that "Maple Ridge supports the provision of
affordable, rental and special needs housing throughout the District."
The housing units to be located on the second floor of this mixed-use commercial/residential
building are to be rental housing for perpetuity. The agreement to be authorized by this bylaw is
appended with the authorizing bylaw to this report as Appendix B. It has been reviewed and
accepted by the land owner.
In addition to the bylaw, the agreement will be registered as a restrictive covenant, and a notice of
the Housing Agreement will be filed on Title by the District in the Land Title Office, in accordance with
subsection 905 (5) of the Local Government Act.
-2-
CONCLUSION:
To allow for more than the one accessory dwelling unit normally permitted in the C-1 (Neighbourhood
Commercial) zone and for increased density, the applicant has agreed to enter into a Housing
Agreement to allow for five dwelling units on the second storey of the proposed mixed-use building.
Provision of this rental housing will provide more housing choices in the community.
The Local Government Act requires an authorizing bylaw for a municipality to enter into such
Housing Agreements. Therefore, Council is required to consider granting first, second and third
reading for the 23227 Dogwood Avenue Housing Agreement Bylaw No. 7004 - 2013. Final
adoption would be considered by Council at a later date, concurrently with the associated text
amending application to the C-1 (Neighbourhood Commercial) zone.
"Original signed by Michelle Baski"
Prepared by: Michelle Baski, AScT
Planning Technician
"Original signed by Christine Carter"
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
"Original signed by David Pollock" for
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng.
GM: Public Works & Development Services
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Subject Map
Appendix B - 23227 Dogwood Avenue Housing Agreement Bylaw No. 7004 - 2013
-3-
'
O
I
CO
1 VJ JV
1
N
CO
O
94 a
2
J
x
P
A
1�
N
co `M
N
em. C
_ P 1 90
NA3°
0
N
M
NN
P 15594
M
m
N
SL 1
co
CP NN
PSE•
c
N
rNi
N
coo
N
N
00
co
%
N SUBJECT PROPERTY
co lu
15594
L
r
v
1
J
K
L
3311
3327
23100
LMP 46534
P 14790
P 26004
P 10938
1
co
Rem A
N
co
,�
N 21
co
22 NT-
co 3
2 0
N
N
N
N
N N
P 77424 P 75590
DOGWOOD AVE
JWS
SL 2
2746
2 C 12968
A2
BCP 38954
MM
N,
N
P 6337
coo
N
3
N
0
co
co
W1/24 N
---. 129 AVE.
12888 1
P 20593
12899
6
33 12912
P 20593
�M
P 77424
P 25708M
co
co co
a 5
12885 12892
N N
oo
m
Scale:
1:2,000
Cit` _.f Pitt9
Mea s ows-
23227 DOGWOOD AVENUE
I
:
� a
IIP.�
�
11'
lig
I
*
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
'='�=1!J'"
LAI
a
,I','•
����16F�
i
err
•�
�
.
rn
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columbia
MAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
-
District of
I
Langley
P
iiii��u:m� ewmpw�
.
/
DATE: Feb 27, 2014 FILE: 2013 052 RZ BY: PC
— mil
FRASER R.
APPENDIX B
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 7004 - 2013
A Bylaw to authorize the District of Maple Ridge to enter into a
Housing Agreement for 23227 Dogwood Avenue
WHEREAS pursuant to Section 905 of the Local Government Act, as amended, Council may,
by bylaw, enter into a housing agreement under that Section;
AND WHEREAS Council and Beta Enterprises Ltd. Inc. No. 99301 wishes to enter into a
housing agreement for the subject property at 23227 Dogwood Avenue;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in
open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. This Bylaw may be cited as "23227 Dogwood Avenue Housing Agreement Bylaw No.
7004 - 2013".
2. By this Bylaw Council authorizes the District to enter into a housing agreement with
Beta Enterprises Ltd. Inc. No. 99301, in respect to the following land:
Lot 1 Section 28 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP46534
Except: Plan BCP39158
3. The Mayor and Corporate Officer are authorized to execute the housing agreement
and all incidental instruments on behalf of the District of Maple Ridge.
4. Schedule A, attached to this Bylaw, is incorporated into and forms part of this Bylaw.
5. This bylaw shall take effect as of the date of adoption hereof.
READ a first time the day of , 20 .
READ a second time the day of ,20 .
READ a third time the day of , 20 .
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , 20 .
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
BETWEEN:
AND:
AND:
Schedule A
Part of Bylaw No. 7004-2013
•
SECTION 219 COVENANT AND 1 --LOUSING AGREEMENT
(2013-052-RZ)
BETA ENTERPRISES LTD. (Inc. No. 99301)
of 765 West 41st Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia, V5Z 2N4
(hereinafter called the "Covenantor")
OF THE FIRST PART
THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia, V2X 6A9
(hereinafter called the "District")
OF THE SECOND PART
CANADIAN WESTERN BANK
300 — 10303 Jasper Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T5J 3X6
(hereinafter called the "Lender")
OF THE THIRD PART
WHEREAS:
A. The Covenantor is the registered owner of or has an equity of redemption in certain lands
situated in the Municipality of Maple Ridge in the Province of British Columbia, and
more particularly known and described as:
PID: 024-815-756 LOT 1 SECTION 28 TOWNSHIP 12 NEW WESTMINSTER
DISTRICT PLAN LMP46534 EXCEPT: PLAN BCP39158
(hereinafter called the "Lands").
B. The District is prepared to allow construction of a second storey for rental housing with a
gross floor area of 429 m2.
C. The Covenantor and the District wish to enter into this Agreement to restrict the use of
housing units to be constructed on the Lands, on the terms and conditions of this
4
Schedule A
Part of Bylaw No, 7004-2013
Agreement, to have effect as both a covenant under section 219 of the Land Title Act and
a housing agreement under section 905 of the Local Government Act.
D. The District has adopted a bylaw under section 905 of the Local Government Act to
authorize this Agreement as a housing agreement.
NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the premises and the covenants herein contained, the
payment of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) paid by the District to the Covenantor, and other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties covenant and agree, pursuant to section 905 of the Local Government Act and section 219
of the Land Title Act (British Columbia) as follows:
Definitions
1. In this Agreement:
(a) "Dwelling Units" means all residential dwelling units located or to be located on
the Lands whether those dwelling units are lots or parcels, or parts or portions
thereof, into which ownership or right of possession or occupation of the Lands
may be subdivided (hereinafter defined) and includes single family detached
dwellings, duplexes, townhouses, auxiliary residential dwelling units, rental
apartments and strata lots in a building strata plan;
(b) "Lands" means the land described in Item 2 of the General Instrument, including
any buildings now or hereafter located on the aforementioned land, and any part
or a portion of such land or building into which said land or building is or may at
any time be subdivided;
(c) "Subdivide" means to divide, apportion, consolidate or subdivide the Lands, or
the ownership or right to possession or occupation of the Lands into two or more
lots, parcels, parts, portions or shares, whether by plan, descriptive words or
otherwise, under the Land Title Act or the Strata Property Act, or otherwise, and
includes the creation, conversion, organization or development of "cooperative
interest" or "shared interest in land" as defined in the Real Development
Marketing Act.
Use, Occupancy, Subdivision and No Separate Sale Restrictions
2. All Dwelling Units shall only be used to provide rental accommodation and shall remain
as rental accommodation in perpetuity.
3, All Dwelling Units shall be rented only on a month to month basis or under a residential
tenancy agreement having a fixed term not exceeding three years, including any rights of
renewal.
4. No Dwelling Unit may be occupied except by an individual who occupies pursuant to a
rental agreement that meets the requirements of section 3.
5
Schedule A
Part of Bylaw No. 7004-2013
5. The Lands shall not be Subdivided, except by means of a strata plan under the Strata
Property Act that includes all of the Dwelling Units within a single strata lot.
Specific Performance
6. The Covenantor agrees that because of the public interest in ensuring that all of the
matters described in this Agreement are complied with, the public interest strongly
favours the award of a prohibitory or mandatory injunction, or an order for specific
performance or other specific relief', by the Supreme Court of British Columbia at the
instance of the District, in the event of an actual or threatened breach of this Agreement.
Notice of Housing Agreement
7. For clarity, the Covenantor acknowledges and agrees that:
(a) this Agreement constitutes both a covenant under section 219 of the Land Title
Act and a Housing Agreement entered into under section 905 of the Local
Government Act;
(b) the District is required to file a notice of Housing Agreement in the Land Title
Office against title to the Lands; and
(c) once such a notice is filed, this Agreement binds all persons who acquire an
interest in the Lands as a Housing Agreement under section 905 of the Local
Government Act.
No Obligation to Enforce
8. The rights given to the District by this Agreement are permissive only and nothing in this
Agreement imposes any legal duty of any kind on the District to anyone, or obliges the
District to enforce this Agreement, to perform any act or to incur any expense in respect
of this Agreement.
No Effect on Laws or Powers
9. This Agreement does not:
(a) affect or limit the discretion, rights, duties, or powers of the District or the
Approving Officer for the District under the common law or any statute, bylaw, or
other enactment, nor does this Agreement date or give rise to, nor do the parties
intend this Agreement to create any implied obligations concerning such
discretionary rights, duties or powers;
(b) affect or limit the common law or any statute, bylaw or other enactment applying
to the Lands; or
(c) relieve the owner from complying with any common law or any statute,
regulation, bylaw or other enactment.
6
Schedule A
Part of Bylaw No. 7004-2013
Indemnity
10. The Covenantor hereby releases the District, and indemnifies and saves the District
harmless, from and against any and all actions, causes of actions, suits, claims (including
claims for injurious affection), cost (including legal fees and disbursements), expenses,
debts, demands, losses (including economic loss) and liabilities of whatsoever kind
arising out of or in any way due or relating to the granting or existence of this Agreement,
the restrictions or obligations contained in this Agreement or the performance or non-
performance by the Covenantor of this Agreement that the District is or may become
liable for, incur or suffer.
Priority
11. The Covenantor will do everything necessary, at the Covenantor's expense, to ensure that
this Agreement is registered against title to the Lands in priority to all liens, charges and
encumbrances registered or pending registration against title to the Lands, save and
except those specifically approved in writing by the District and those in favour of the
District.
Waiver
12. An alleged waiver of any breach of this Agreement is effective only if it is an express
waiver in writing of the breach. A waiver of a breach of this Agreement does not operate
as a wavier of any other breach of this Agreement.
Interpretation
13. In this Agreement:
(a) reference to the singular includes a reference to the plural, and vice versa, unless
the context requires otherwise;
(b) reference to a particular numbered section or article, or to a particular lettered
Schedule, is a reference to the correspondingly numbered or lettered article,
section or Schedule of this Agreement;
(e) article and section headings have been inserted for ease of reference only and are
not to be used in interpreting this Agreement;
(d) the word "enactment" has the meaning given to it in the Interpretation Act
(British Columbia) on the reference date of this Agreement;
(e) reference to any enactment is a reference to that enactment as consolidated,
revised, amended, re-enacted or replace, unless otherwise expressly provided;
(f)
(g)
(h)
Further Acts
Schedule A
Part of Bylaw No. 7004-2013
reference to "party" or the "parties" is a reference to a party, or the parties, to this
Agreement and their respective successors, assigns, trustees, administrators and
receivers;
time is of the essence; and
reference to a "day", "month" or "year" is a reference to a calendar day, calendar
month, or calendar year unless otherwise expressly provided.
14. The Covenantor will do everything reasonably necessary to give effect to the intent of this
Agreement, including execution of further instruments.
Severance
15. If any part of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable by a court
having the jurisdiction to do so, that part is to be considered to have been severed from
the rest of this Agreement and the rest of this Agreement remains in force unaffected by
that holding or by the severance of that part.
No Other Agreements
16. This Agreement is the entire agreement between the parties regarding its subject and it
terminates and supersedes all other agreements and arrangements regarding its subject.
Enurement
17. This Agreement binds the parties to it and their respective successors, heirs, executors
and administrators.
Deed and Contract
18. By executing and delivering this Agreement each of the parties intends to create both a
contract and a deed executed and delivered under seal.
As evidence of their agreement to be bound by this Agreement, the Covenantor and the District
have executed the Land Title Act Form C or D, as the case may be, attached to and forming part
of this Agreement.
8
Schedule A
Part of Bylaw No. 7004-2013
CONSENT & PRIORITY
The Lender in consideration of the payment of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) and other good and
valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged) hereby
consents to the registration of the Covenant herein granted under Section 219 of the Land Title
Act, running with the said lands and against the said lands and the Lender hereby postpones all of
its rights under the Mortgage and Assignment of Rents registered respectively under No.
and (the "Lender Documents") to those rights of the District under the Covenant herein in
the same manner and to the same extent and effect as if the Covenant herein had been dated,
granted and registered prior to the Lender Documents.
END OF DOCUMENT
9
Ovep Avera
Grum, Nnyr,.
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 14, 2014
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2014-014-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: First Reading
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7071-2014
13316 235 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received to rezone the subject property from RS -3 (One Family Rural
Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) and RS -lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential).
The subject site (Appendix A) is designated "Medium -High Density Residential" in the Silver Valley
Area Plan. The proposed RS -lb zone is a continuation of what currently exists north of the subject
site, facing 235th Street. The proposed R-1 zone aligns well with the OCP designation and with the
proposal that was recently approved east of the subject site (RZ/075/09 and 2011 -140 -SD). The
proposed preliminary subdivision plan (Appendix C) shows five (5) fee simple lots zoned RS -1b and
eight (8) bare land strata lots zoned R-1. The existing topography of the subject site is challenging
and access options are limited, so a bare land strata arrangement is suitable. An OCP amendment is
not required.
To proceed further with this application additional information is required as outlined below.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7071-2014 be given first reading; and
That the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules B and G of the
Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879 - 1999, along with the information required for a
Subdivision application.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant:
Owner:
Ed Brett/Paul Hayes
Landmark Enterprises Ltd.
Legal Description: Lot 3, Section 28, Township 12, New Westminster District Plan
3007; PID: 002-392-313
OCP:
Existing:
Proposed:
Med-High Density Residential
Med-High Density Residential
1102
Zoning:
Existing: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Proposed: R-1 (Residential District) and RS -1b (One Family Urban (Medium
Density) Residential)
Surrounding Uses:
North: Use: Single Family and Duplex Residential
Zone: RT -1 (Two Family Urban Residential), RS -3 (One Family Rural
Residential), and RS -1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density)
Residential)
Designation: Medium Density Residential
South: Use: Single Family and Larch Avenue
Zone: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential), and RS -1b (One Family
Urban (Medium Density) Residential)
Designation: Medium -High Density Residential, Neighbourhood Park, and
conservation
East: Use: Single Family and Street Townhouses (new development under
construction)
Zone: R-1 (Residential District) and RST -SV (Street Townhouse)
Designation: Medium -High Density Residential
West: Use: Single Family Residential and 235th Street
Zone: RS -lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential)
Designation: Medium Density Residential
Existing Use of Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Site Area: 0.770 Hectares (1.90 acres)
Access: 235th Street and Larch Avenue
Servicing requirement: Urban Standard
b) Site and Project Characteristics:
This subject site (Appendix A) is a remnant parcel and the proposal is the last phase of a series of
pre -zoned lands north of the subject site and west of 235th Street. There is an existing 3.0 metre
wide statutory right-of-way along the northern property boundary which is to be retained.
The preliminary subdivision plans (Appendix C) show a total of 13 single family residential lots, of
which 5 lots are proposed to be zoned RS -lb, ranging in size from 557 m2 to 635 m2 and accessed
off of 235th street. The remainder eight (8) lots, ranging in size from 373 m2 to 392 m2, will be part
of a bare land strata arrangement, accessed off of Larch Avenue. The topography of the subject site
is challenging with some areas showing 15-25% slopes (Appendix D). The proposed RS -1b lots facing
235th Street follow the existing lot pattern on the north of the subject site, leaving an inaccessible,
deeper remainder lot on the eastern portion, which can be accessed only off of Larch Avenue.
Further subdivision of this remainder lot is not possible through a fee simple subdivision, so a bare
land strata arrangement is suitable for the eastern half of the subject site (Appendix C). The
proposed R-1 lot sizes within the bare land subdivision arrangement are compatible with the ones
-2-
Council approved on the east of the subject site (RZ/075/09). The RS -1b lots facing 235th Street will
not have access off of the bare land strata lane. All the off-site upgrades to roads and servicing will
be required as a condition of final reading of the zone amending bylaw and the final subdivision
approvals.
The subject sites are not located in or near a known archeological resource according to Provincial or
local records. At this time the current application has been assessed to determine its compliance
with the Official Community Plan (OCP) and provide a land use assessment only. Detailed review and
comments will need to be made once full application packages have been received. A more detailed
analysis and a further report will be required prior to Second Reading. Such assessment may impact
proposed lot boundaries and yields, OCP designations and Bylaw particulars, and may require
application for further development permits.
c) Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan - Silver Valley Area Plan:
The development site (Appendix A) designated "Medium -High Density Residential", is located within
the Silver Valley Area Plan. The proposed RS -1b and R-1 zones align well with the OCP designation.
The development of Silver Valley is based on principles associated with achieving a complete
community with good pedestrian linkages. Within the Silver Valley Area Plan, the subject site falls
between Forest Hamlet and River Village.
In February 2012, Council approved a development proposal RZ/075/09, east of the subject site for
13 single family lots zoned R-1 and 17 street townhouses zoned RST -SV. This application
RZ/075/09 included the construction of the new Larch Avenue. The original Larch Avenue leg will
remain as a multi-purpose trail to enhance the pedestrian connectivity in this neighbourhood
(Appendix A). Properties on the south of the subject site are designated for a Neighbourhood Park
which will prove to be an asset for the future residents of the proposed development.
The proposal fits well with the existing neighbourhood context. The proposed zones follow the
neighbourhood's pattern and align well with the existing OCP designation. An OCP amendment is not
required.
Zoning Bylaw:
The current application proposes to rezone the property located at 13316 235 Street from RS -3
(One Family Rural Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) and RS -lb (One Family Urban (Medium
Density) Residential) to permit a future subdivsion of 13 single family residential lots. The proposed
R-1 (Residential District) zone requires a minimum lot size of 371 m2; a minimum lot width of 12
metres and a minimum lot depth of 24 metres. The proposed RS -1b (One Family Urban Residential
- Medium Density) zone requires a minimum lot area of 557 m2; a minimum lot width of 15 metres
and a minimum lot depth of 27 metres. The maximum height permitted in the RS -1b zone is 9.5
metres and in the R-1 zone is 9.0 metres.
The Zoning Bylaw, Subdivision Servicing Bylaw and Off- Street Parking & Loading Bylaws establish
general minimum and maximum regulations for specific zones. If the development proposal does
not meet the requirements such as road standards, setbacks, height, on-site parking, etc. the
applicant may seek a variance. Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will
require a Development Variance Permit application. A Development Variance Permit allows Council
-3-
some flexibility in the approval process. Such flexibility can allow an applicant to sensitively fit a
project to a challenging site. This assessment is anticipated to take place prior to second reading.
Development Permits:
Pursuant to Section 8.10 of the OCP, a Natural Features Development Permit application is required
for all development and subdivision activity or building permits for:
• All areas designated Conservation on Schedule "B" or all areas within 50 metres of an
area designated Conservation on Schedule "B", or on Figures 2, 3 and 4 in the Silver
Valley Area Plan;
• All lands with an average natural slope of greater than 15 %;
• All floodplain areas and forest lands identified on Natural Features Schedule "C"
to ensure the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment and
for development that is protected from hazardous conditions.
d) Interdepartmental Implications:
In order to advance the current application, after First Reading, comments and input, will be sought
from the various internal departments and external agencies listed below:
a) Engineering Department;
b) Operations Department;
c) Fire Department;
d) Building Department;
e) School District; and
f) Canada Post.
The above list is intended to be indicative only and it may become necessary, as the application
progresses, to liaise with agencies and/or departments not listed above.
This application has not been forwarded to the Engineering Department for comments at this time;
therefore, an evaluation of servicing requirements has not been undertaken. We anticipate that this
evaluation will take place between First and Second Reading.
e) Development Applications:
In order for this application to proceed the following information must be provided, as required by
Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879 - 1999 as amended:
1. A complete Rezoning Application (Schedule B);
2. A Natural Features Development Permit Application (Schedule G); and
3. A Subdivision Application.
The above list is intended to be indicative only, other applications may be necessary as the
assessment of the proposal progresses.
-4-
CONCLUSION:
The development proposal is in compliance with the Silver Valley Area Plan. In addition, the proposed
zone and lot configuration fits well with the existing lot/road pattern and the emerging
neighbourhood. Therefore, it is recommended that Council grant first reading to the Zone Amending
Bylaw No. 7071-2014, subject to additional information being provided and assessed prior to
Second Reading.
The proposed layout has not been reviewed in relation to the relevant bylaws and regulations
governing subdivision applications. Any subdivision layout provided is strictly preliminary and must
be approved by the District of Maple Ridge's Approving Officer.
"Original signed by Rasika Acharya"
Prepared by. Rasika Acharya, B -Arch, M -Tech, UD, LEED® AP, MCIP, RPP
Planner
"Original signed by Christine Carter"
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
"Original signed by David Pollock" for
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Subject Map
Appendix B - Zone Amending Bylaw 7071-2014
Appendix C - Proposed Preliminary Subdivision Plans
Appendix D - Environmental Map
-5-
"t0
13418
1313379
1
23430 y_�
1
13367
19
31 13412
9
13366
1213375
86 16
13363
/
20o_1113371
BC' 42355 1713406
.....--•�13367
8 13357
1111
i
23605 Co
23611
30 PAR gs34('- 7
13356
13400
21
813363
11664
/ 8
13395
7 13353
26
27 \ 13385
6
$13359
28
13390
6
22
7
13380
13349
M
13350
07
N N
CO
/ 13375
*
5 `
M
cn
13355
X41,
1� 29
*
6
13370 in
5
N 13345
to
23
�6
U�
CO
13365
4
N
13346
W 13351
N
13356 1\
23486
( /�
4
v. 5
13360
W 13341
24
513347
13350 14
30
3
i
13340 �?
4
413355
3480
cr)
13343
13346 15
31
SUBJECT PROPERTY
3 13339
CN
13340 16
� 2
X76
73335•
1333625
T
�
/6I\.331
BC
13331 1333226 W
2 13335
W
1-3336 1 7_
341
2325.?
13331
13332
18
33 V N
1 13327 13328 11 p
13325
13326 19
`-'8.16,, m h 2
913321 13321
13322 1
13 19
13320 20
`S 9
23456 4 ' K .-.1
3133 Rem 3
8
13317
13318138:
13315
13312 21'
1a
35 4 13309 P 3007
7
13313
14"
13312
1/
/
2
3
r'
PP X4138
613309
Co
co
L
50153 13305
13305 iiliti
A
M
N
co5
N5
PARK/
N 13301
Lo 6
RP 15218
LMP
10
52145
9
0_
RRem
-1i.t7) 8
7
A
NPJ�.Fk
w \A G
[Ott
27 ,— 13295
I
c,
N
co
m
(Ni
m
to
c
N
t°n°
77
g- 289
I
N/
N
o
M
N
913283
I
in
N
---- --- LF4RCH E---- -- -----— 24N
2526w301277
I
13167
1
O
co0
c
C')
N
37
P 40978
O
to
co
N
4
P 24142
0
to
to
co
N
38
P 40978
13245
39
-.
--
236 ST. — — -- — — —
13260
P 13167
3
P 37422
30
32
33
ti 35
F
Scale:
1:2,000
Cif`�_.f Pitt
Measows_
_ �2
431
ROLL #73884-0000—X
(LARCH AVENUE)
-
Nlis !-�
; &
47,1 L
r amoimmsmw.
... it
.........
J'
" `"'�
—
"°�
r
*
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
�
i
it �y
1' �i!
- ��=!1
� (,i
0`�'
-.d
`
I
,. �'idr,
rn
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columbia
MAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
District of I
I
,
��um
I..--
�P
Langley
-iiNlikmomp
DATE: Feb 24, 2014 FILE: 2014-014-RZ BY: PC
—�0j
FRASER R.
APPENDIX B
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 7071-2014
A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part
of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -
1985 as amended;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple
Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7071-2014."
2. That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as:
Lot 3 Section 28 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 3007
Except: Reference Plan 15218, Plans 66891, LMP46668, LMP47584, BCP10664,
BCP42355, EPP9001, AND EPP23139.
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1615 a copy of which is attached hereto
and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to R-1 (Residential District), and
RS -1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential).
3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached
thereto are hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time the day of , 20
READ a second time the day of , 20
PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 20
READ a third time the day of , 20
ADOPTED, the day of , 20
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
-it 'VJ J
16
r5
/ N
BCP44421 13418 14
11313379
�
10
a
w•
0 13382
23430 15
13367
19
\ 1
CROSS RD.
31 18412
i
13366 m
11213375
13380 6 N>
IQ
w
w
3426 16
9
13363
1113371
_MP 43405
O "O
,
20n.
13376 7\
0
CO
Ni
N BC' 42355 17 13406
o
8
13360 0-
w
1
\c
30 PAR 134p9 7 13357
13356
1 3367
8
9 10 i
26
27
28
29
13400
\i
21
1
913363
BCP
15664
$3395
7 13353
\
PP 23135
`
co
ro 11
22
23
24
25
26
27 13385
6
16
N
813359
\
12
..7.28
7
13390
cm 13349
22
g
,,,cd
cV
v
v
v
v
13380
i
13350
076`18
1
g1-
13375
5
M
F
N
13355
h
R 29
133704
iz.
513345
W
0613351
co
M
`'6�
133AAVE.
63365
s
N
1334623
N
4
w
`�,
23486
5
13360
I W 13341
24
513347
13350 14
o
30
a
3
.hr
.hr
v
v a 13355
-1
I 3
13340
413343
�j
�j 480 4
13350
CO 13339
1
13346 15
40
39
2
IN 2
c+Mi
a CNI
3 13339
d
13340 16
18�p
BCP4
1041
1066438
..
a 13335
1333625
_!�
CO BCS1577
i W 1 13331
1333226w
213335
W
13336 17
'' 6�6
�P 32 13336/40
23465 23¢68
L' _EP
%002 _
1 13331
13332 18
176h0
0l
5 37 33 U .. • ' 2
1 13327
11r
13325
.
235s 23462 ¢0
2
13328
I W
13326 19
16
�titi
h�
133j9co
19
13321
12N
13322
N 16
1� 13319
`�°
13320 20 I
15
,&36
222 �Qp� 23456 4
PARK ••••./ 3 13373
`' m 3
N 83317
13318 1 .
:‘-11111.33331159
W 13315
a
13312 21 ,
14
vs.,* 234 35
13309
3007
IN 13313
13312 14
2 2
-I
1
5
6
9� 2,844450
�� 24 LMP
.?�
_LMP
\ 52146
.0153 5 13305
LO
`
/
X4138
IW 613309
5 13305
,
SI
`iiRR3 w
`�S� •'
m.
. v
r3
•,
r3
‹P /
��o2CQ PARK
0.a,
LMP
N 13301
6
RP 15218
gq2�'
4'
10
'
1
13291 LM P50241
.2i'45
. 10_ / I
\I CD 9 �N1I
-J 8
7
RemA
co
1 1
11
1 �p.R,.
G-
E.
)1 27
1
__ 13295
V
MP 35465PP
153
1 R 3 a
71-J
M
N/
N
CO
1 �
\�,•. .I�I°IN1Zg13288
a,
Li"
N z: •
BCP 52028
LARCH AVE.
1
N
‹QQ 241:1
e5
26
FpP"I'1
13285
/
P 13167
1
13210
a
c,
37
P 40978
o
4
P 24142
38
P 409
13245
39
78
13260
21
P 47603
co
co
13243
M
co
m
P 131
13202
37
3
P 37422
30
31
32
33
35
co
P 47603
*PP159
N 13227
21
2
M
22
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING
Bylaw No. 7071-2014
Map No. 1615
From: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential)
To: 0 R-1 (Residential District)
A RS -1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential)
/0\
N
SCALE 1:2,500
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columbia
APPENDIX C
1 . 500
2
1YPIGL
BUILDING
ENVELOPE
12m x 12m
Ref.Plan 15218
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION INTO 5 RS -1 b LOTS
DATE: 20 JANUARY, 2014
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 3 SECTION 28 TOWNSHIP 12 NEW WESTMINSTER
DISTRICT PLAN 3007 EXCEPT: REFERENCE PLAN 15218, PLANS 66891,
LMP 46668, LMP 47584, BCP 10664, BCP42355, EPP9001, AND EPP23139
Ref.Plan 15218
• LARCH AVENUE
ROAD DEDICATION
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION INTO
8 R-1 BARELAND STRATA LOTS
DATE: 20 JANUARY, 2014
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 3 SECTION 28 TOWNSHIP 12 NEW WESTMINSTER
DISTRICT PLAN 3007 EXCEPT: REFERENCE PLAN 15218, PLANS 66891,
LMP 46668, LMP 47584, BCP 10664, BCP42355, EPP9001, AND EPP23139
APPENDIX D
V
Wait —
EPP
Slopes over 25%
1
LAI CHAVE
24\
The Corporation of the District of rylaple Ridge
makes no guarantee regarding the accuracy
or present status of the information shown on
this map.
_xc
Scale: 1:1 000
Legend
Slope
Trails Percent
OCP STATUS -14
DESIRED 15 - 25
EXISTING i 26-30
30+
13316 235 St.
Site Context Map
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
MAPLE RIDGE
P_ANMN0 DE ARfF.1=4T
DATE: Apr 1 , 2014
FILE: U rafted Bx': R
MAPLE R11)0E
B. E.l�ra�u-a�s
Jrrn Kaci_
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 14, 2014
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2013-082-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Second Reading
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.7O37-2013
13260 236 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The proposal is to rezone the subject property (Appendix A) from RS -3 (One Family Rural
Residential), and RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential) zones to RM -1 (Townhouse Residential)
zone.
At the September 24, 2013 meeting, Council reviewed a staff report recommending denial for this
application. At this meeting, Council resolved that staff prepare the bylaw amendments in support of
this development application, subject to the developer committing to build a sidewalk as an off-site
amenity for the neighbourhood, as a compensation for the higher density proposed.
At the December 10, 2013 meeting, Council granted first reading to Zone Amending Bylaw No.
7037-2013. The developer (Portrait Homes) is seeking a site-specific zoning text amendment to
permit an increase in the total gross floor area (i.e. from permitted 0.6 FSR to 0.64 FSR) which
translates to 61 units or a density of 49.98 units per net hectare. Some setback and height
variances will be required to achieve this density. As a compensation for the increased gross floor
area, the developer is offering an amenity in the form of a new sidewalk located on the west side of
236 Street between 132nd Avenue and Fern Crescent (Appendix D). This sidewalk installation will
cost approximately $135,000.00 and is anticipated to improve pedestrian connectivity in this part of
Silver Valley. Since first reading the developer has revised the proposal, reducing the number of
townhouse units from 64 to 61. This proposal as revised (Appendix C) does not require an OCP
amendment.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7037-2013 be amended as identified in the
staff report dated April 14, 2014, be given second reading, and be forwarded to Public
Hearing; and
2. That the following terms and conditions be met prior to Final Reading.
Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt
of the deposit of a security, as outlined in the Agreement;
1103
ii. Road dedication as required;
iii. Registration of a Geotechnical Report as a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office
which addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed development;
iv. Removal of the existing buildings;
v. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant protecting the Visitor Parking;
vi. Construction of the sidewalk along 236th Street up to Fern Crescent;
vii. An Engineer's certification that adequate water quantity for domestic and fire
protection purposes can be provided;
viii. A disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising
whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks. If there is evidence,
a site profile pursuant to the Waste Management Act must be provided in accordance
with the regulations; and
ix. Pursuant to the Contaminated Site Regulations of the Environmental Management
Act, the property owner will provide a Site Profile for the subject land.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant: Randy Dick
Owner: Portrait Homes Ltd.
Legal Description: Lot: 21, Section: 28, Township: 12, Plan: NWP 47603
OCP:
Existing:
Proposed:
Medium -High Density Residential
Medium -High Density Residential
Zoning:
Existing: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential), and
RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Proposed: RM -1 (Townhouse Residential)
Surrounding Uses:
North:
South:
Use: Single Family Residential and 133rd Avenue
Zone: R-1 (Residential District)
Designation Medium -High Density Residential
Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Designation: Medium -High Density Residential
-2-
East: Use:
West:
Zone:
Designation:
Use:
Zone:
Designation:
Existing Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Site Area:
Access:
Servicing requirement:
Companion Applications:
b) Site and Project Description:
Vacant currently (recently approved 69 townhouses,
Conservation and one Single Family Residential)
RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential); RS -3
(One Family Rural Residential); and RM -1
(Townhouse Residential)
Medium -High Density Residential and
Conservation
Single Family Residential, Street Townhouses and
236th Street
RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential),
RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) and
RST -SV (Street Townhouses- Silver Valley)
Medium -High Density Residential
Single Family Residential
Multi -Family Residential (townhouses)
3.017 acres or 12209.36 m2
236th Street
Urban Standard
2013 -082 -DP and 2013-082-DVP
The subject site (Appendix A) is located in Silver Valley and is bounded to the north by single family
lots, approximately 5-10 years old. To the west, there are new street townhouses, facing 236th Street
and to the east, a recently approved 69 unit townhouse development. To the south, facing 132nd
Avenue, are two single family lots, designated "Medium -High Density Residential" which are likely to
be re -developed in the near future. The subject site (Appendix A) is sloping down almost 12% from
north-east corner to the south-west corner, towards the intersection of 132nd Avenue and 236th
Street.
The current development proposal consists of 61 townhouse units in 17 blocks clustered around a
6.0 metre wide strata road. Main access to the site is proposed from 236th Street, in the south-west
corner (Appendix C). The units facing 133rd Avenue have direct pedestrian access on to 133rd
Avenue and are in a duplex form to be more sensitive to the existing single family houses north of
133rd Avenue. Each duplex has a combination of tandem and a two -car double wide garage
attached. Most of the units facing 236th Street are 3 storey units (13 feet or 3.96 metre wide) with
tandem parking arrangement (one enclosed garage and the second space on the driveway apron).
For the rest of the site, the proposal has a reasonable mix of tandem and double wide units. Out of a
total of 61 units proposed, 36 have a 2 -car double wide attached garage, while 86 units (70.49%)
have a tandem parking arrangement. Throughout the site, the unit block sizes vary from 2 to 5
attached units in each block. The proposed unit sizes vary from 119 m2 (1277 sft) to 162 m2 (1749
sft) giving a reasonable mix of two and three bedroom units. A large central green space (amenity
area) is surrounded by pedestrian walkways and townhouse blocks. The proposed rain and storm
water management scheme utilizes means such as infiltration of site run-off through absorbent
landscaping, rain gardens, bio swales, central green space between units, permeable pavers for the
visitor parking stalls and staggered landscaped beds with appropriate top soil. The Landscape
-3-
Architect has provided a detailed landscape plan (Appendix F) that will be discussed in the
Development Permit report at a future Council meeting.
Proposed building finishes include a variety of finishes such as pre -finished vinyl siding, painted
board and batten siding, painted wood wall shingles, painted wooden bargeboards, fascia, columns,
beams, cultured stone cladding for column bases and fiberglass laminated shingles for roofing.
Details of the proposed materials and finishes will be discussed in a future Council report.
c) Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan:
The development site (Appendix A) is located on the south-east corner of 236th Street and 133rd
Avenue, within the Silver Valley Area Plan, located just outside of the "River Village" Hamlet Centre.
The OCP designation for the subject site is "Medium -High Density Residential".
Silver Valley Area Plan Policy 5.2 states:
River Village is located along a main arterial route in the Silver Valley area, on Fern Crescent,
between Maple Ridge Park to the south and an escarpment to the north and east.
The principles within the River Village area talk about making it a complete community with diverse
mix of uses and building types.
Principal 5.2.8 for River Village Hamlet states:
a) Residential densities range from 30 to 70 units per net hectare within a 5 -minute walk of the
River Village. Approximately 400 residential units are proposed within this area, however, an
additional 575 residences are proposed within an 800 metre radius of the centre.
b) Higher densities of 70 units per hectare are generally limited to Balsam Street on opposing
sides of the north half of the Community Green. These densities are typically associated with
maisonette type apartment accommodation within a mansion building form.
c) Densities of 30-50 units per hectare will be encouraged for the balance of the River Village area
and may include attached as well as detached fee -simple housing.
d) In general, higher densities of 50 units per hectare should be located south of Balsam Creek
between 233rd Street and 235th Street and should be within 400 m or 5 minute walk from the
village centre.
Land uses in the periphery of the hamlet are meant to serve as a transition to higher density in the
Hamlet Centre. The subject site (Appendix A) is outside both: the defined higher density areas in the
Area Plan and the 400 metre or 5 minute walking radius of the River Village Hamlet Centre. Based
on the location, the density permitted for the subject site is 30-50 units per net hectare. The original
proposal with 64 townhouse units, exceeding 50 units per net hectare, needed an OCP amendment.
-4-
This proposal was recently revised to 61 townhouse units after Council granted first reading, to
avoid the requirement of an OCP amendment. The density proposed as shown in the current
proposal is in compliance with the density for this area (Policy 5.2.8 c above). As a result an OCP
amendment is not required. However, a site-specific text amendment is necessary to allow an FSR
of 0.64 which exceeds the permitted floor space ratio in the RM -1 zone.
Zoning Bylaw:
The proposed zone requires a minimum usable open space of 45 m2 for each three-bedroom and
30 m2 for each two-bedroom unit. This zone also requires a Common Activity area of minimum 5 m2
per unit. The proposed useable open space and common activity area including the central green
space, front and exterior side yards exceeds the minimum required in the zone.
The proposed zone permits a floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.6 times the net lot area plus a 50 m2 area
per unit for habitable basements. The RM -1 zone permits a total gross floor area of 7322.33 m2 for
the subject site. The developer is requesting increased total gross floor area to 7808.75 m2 (i.e. an
FSR of 0.64 instead of 0.6 permitted) via a site-specific text amendment. This site-specific text
amendment is reflected in the revised Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7037-2013 as attached (Appendix
B). The first reading report showed an FSR of 0.67 which has been revised to 0.64 FSR as attached
in Appendix B. This proposal shows 10 more units than the previous application (RZ/085/08).
The RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) zone specifies the following setbacks: 7.5 metres from front, rear
and exterior side yard; 4.5 metres from an interior side yard for a wall with no windows to a
habitable room; and 6.0 metres from an interior side yard for a wall with a balcony or a window to a
habitable room. Maximum permitted height in this zone must not exceed 10.5 metres and 2.5
storeys. Some variances for setback, height and storeys of certain units are being sought, as
outlined below.
Proposed Variances to the Zoning Bylaw:
Some setback variances are being requested fro units facing 133rd Avenue (north) and 236th Street
(west) and are along the eastern and southern property lines. In addition to this all the proposed
units are three storeys in form and out of 61 units, 20 units are proposing a height of 11.75 metres
while 41 units are proposing a height of 11.5 metres.
A development variance permit allows Council some flexibility in the approval process. From a
design perspective these setback variances are minor and proposed with an intention of providing
better street presence. It should however be noted that the height and storey variances have
stemmed from the form/design and will not comply with the new Zoning Bylaw when measurement
will be to the mid point of the roof as opposed to currently being measured to the roof ridge. The
details of these variances (setback, height and storeys) will be discussed in a future Council report.
Off -Street Parking and Loading Bylaw:
As per the Maple Ridge Off -Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990, the RM -1 (Townhouse
Residential District zone) requires 2 parking spaces per unit for residents plus 0.2 spaces per unit
-5-
for visitors. Based on the required total on-site parking ratio for the RM -1 zone, 122 residential
stalls are required, which have been proposed in the form of tandem or double wide parking garages
attached to each unit. Out of a total of 61 units proposed, 36 have a 2 -car double wide attached
garage, while 86 units (70.49%) have a tandem parking arrangement. All the units have driveway
aprons ranging in length from 4 to 6 metres. A total of 13 parking spaces are required for visitors,
which have been distributed throughout the site in between the building blocks as shown in the
proposed Site Plan (Appendix C).
Proposed Amenity:
The developer is required to provide all the off-site upgrades along both the street frontages, as a
condition of final reading on the rezoning. This is standard with any development application
requiring the land to be rezoned.
In addition to this the developer is offering to build a sidewalk going south, down the west side of
236th Street, from 132nd Avenue to Fern Crescent. This sidewalk is anticipated to be a 1.5 m asphalt
sidewalk as shown in a draft sketch attached as Appendix D. The details of the sidewalk will depend
on ground-truthing and be finalized with the off-site servicing drawings. The proposed sidewalk is
approximately estimated to cost the developer $135,000.00 plus other fees. The developer is
offering this as a type of amenity to offset the proposed excess gross floor area for the site. This will
also be a condition of final reading as mentioned in this report.
Development Permits:
Pursuant to Section 8.7 of the Official Community Plan, a Multi -Family Development Permit
application and approval is required to ensure the current proposal enhances existing
neighbourhoods with compatible housing styles that meet diverse needs, and minimize potential
conflicts with neighbouring land uses. This will be the subject of a future Council report.
Advisory Design Panel:
On February 11, 2014, the Advisory Design Panel reviewed the proposal for form and character.
The panel recommended this proposal moving forward with the following concerns to be addressed
by the applicant as the design develops and submitted to staff for follow-up:
• Consider pedestrian access on north internal street;
• Consider more meaningful onsite pedestrian access & circulation from informal gravel paths
to more formal paths and elimination of the dead-end paths;
• Consider onsite storm water detention methods on internal streets to maximize soil volume
for planting areas;
• Consider using bio-swale treatment along 236 Street;
• Reconsider access between buildings facing 236 Street for internal circulation;
• Consider non-combustible materials in buildings of close proximity;
-6-
• Consider centralizing the amenity area/green space to a better sun aspect (orientation)
and/or improving the visual supervision for all the residents including connectivity to 236th
Street;
• Consider consistent wood detail (reference to the double wood detail) throughout the site;
• Consider further natural play-scape elements in the amenity area/open space.
All the above stated concerns were addressed through design revisions such as improved
pedestrian connectivity to 236th Street and within the development, introducing bio-swales and
providing an improved Storm Water Management on site. These revisions were reviewed by the
Panel to their satisfaction. The details of these revisions will be discussed in a future Council report.
Development Information Meeting:
A Development Information Meeting was held on Thursday, April 3, 2014 from 5:00 to 7:30 pm at
the Yennadon Elementary School at 23347, 128th Avenue, Maple Ridge. The developer and his
team of consultants were present with the details of the proposal and to answer any questions from
the attendees. As per Council Policy 6.20, invitations were mailed to qualifying property owners;
advertisements were placed in the local paper and a notice was attached to the development sign
on site. Approximately 14 people attended this meeting and the concerns expressed and some
responses may be summarized as stated below:
• There seemed to be a general concern about the existing traffic in the Rock Ridge area and
the negative impact on traffic due to increased gross floor are with this development. Some
expressed concerns about the safety at the corner of 236th Street and 133rd Avenue and
suggested that a traffic circle or four-way stop sign be installed;
• There seemed to be positive support for the duplex form proposed facing 133rd Avenue;
• There seemed to be a general concern about lack of schools/ neighbourhood parks and no
transit in the Silver Valley area and that the children cannot be accommodated in the
Yennadon Elementary School;
• Some expressed concerns about the proposed tandem units. The developer explained that
the project meets the proposed tandem parking bylaw amendments;
• One of the resident preferred single family development for the site instead of townhouses;
• Some concerns were expressed about parking along 236th Street. The developer explained
that 236th street would be widened to a Collector standard road right-of-way which will offer
at least 15 new parking spaces along east of 236th Street;
• Some expressed concerns if the existing mail boxes on 133rd Avenue may be moved;
• Some expressed concerns about removing trees; wanted as many trees to be saved as
possible. The developer explained trees along southern property line will be saved and the
others will need to be cleared but will be replaced by substantial new ones;
• Some enquired about the new sidewalk along 236th Street up to Fern Crescent; and
• Some enquired about the drainage and on-site storm water management for the proposed
development. The developer explained that the Storm Water Management Plan proposes a
combination of top soil, absorbent landscaping, bio -sales and detention on site, with special
attention to reduce negative impacts on downstream lands along the southern property line.
The meeting ended at 8:00 pm.
-7-
d) Environmental Implications:
A three-tier Storm Water Management system, designed in accordance with the District's
Watercourse Protection Bylaw 6410-2006 and incorporating the following three components, is
required.
i. Rainfall Capture (Source Control), for Tier A events (the small rainfall events that are less
than half the size of a mean annual rainfall (MAR), 90% of all rainfall events are Tier A
events);
ii. Runoff Control (Detention) for Tier B events (the large rainfall events that are greater
than half the size of a MAR. but smaller than a MAR, about 10% of all rainfall events are
Tier B events); and
iii. Flood Risk Management (contain and convey), for Tier C events (the extreme rainfall
events exceeding a MAR, a Tier C event may or may not occur in any given year)
Rainfall capture will be primarily achieved by using 300 mm thick absorbent topsoil, with detention,
containment, and conveyance achieved through oversized piping and the bios-wales, rain gardens
and detention tanks located on the site. The BCLNA "growing medium" tables provide
guidelines for ratios of sand, silt, and clay, along with organic content, acidity, and drainage. A Storm
Water Management Restrictive Covenant showing all the SWM areas along with guidelines for
maintenance by the future strata will be registered on title.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
Engineering Department:
The Engineering Department reviewed the proposal and determined that there is road dedication for
a 3x3 metre corner truncation and that all the required off-site services do not exist. The deficient
services and upgrades which are required to be provided through a Rezoning Servicing Agreement
include the following: removal of culverts, under -ground utilities, new separated sidewalk, new
concrete barrier curb and gutter, street trees and street lights facing 133rd Avenue and 236th Street.
In addition to the above, details of the proposed off-site amenity of the sidewalk along 236th Street
up to Fern Crescent will need to be included in the refundable cost estimate. This sidewalk is
anticipated to be a 1.5 m asphalt sidewalk as shown in a draft sketch attached as Appendix D. The
details of the sidewalk will depend on ground-truthing and will be finalized with the off-site servicing
drawings, prior to final reading of the proposed bylaw.
Parks & Leisure Services Department:
The Parks & Leisure Services Department have identified that after the Development Permit is
completed they will be responsible for maintaining the street trees. Upon completion of this project,
it is anticipated that 22 street trees (total along both the road frontages) will be added to the
municipal street tree inventory,
-8-
Fire Department:
The Fire Department has reviewed the proposal and comments have been provided to the applicant.
The applicant has ensured that these will be addressed at the Building Permit stage.
Building Department:
The Building Department has reviewed the proposal and comments have been provided to the
applicant. The applicant has ensured that all these will be addressed through the Building Permit
drawings at a later date.
f) School District Comments:
A referral was sent to the School District office and comments were received on March 12, 2014.
The School District 42 has reiterated that developments in the Silver Valley Area would affect the
projected student population for the catchment area currently served by Yennadon Elementary and
Garibaldi Secondary schools. The enrollment at the Yennadon Elementary School is at 104.4%
utilization (569 students, including 140 out of catchment students, for 2013-14 year). The students
from this area will need to be bussed to Harry Hooge and Alouette Elementary schools, which are
beyond the established walking limits of the School Board. Enrollment at the Garibaldi Secondary
school is at 74.67% utilization (784 students, including 362 out of catchment students, for 2013-14
year).
g) Citizen/Customer Implications:
A Development Information Meeting was conducted on April 3, 2014 where the neighbours had an
opportunity to express their concerns. This along with a future Public Hearing is considered
adequate opportunities for citizens to voice their concerns regarding the proposed development.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed land use is in compliance with the land use designation of the Silver Valley Area Plan.
The original proposal was revised to comply with the OCP. The project architect has addressed all
the concerns from the Advisory Design Panel. Some setback and height variances will be required as
described in this report.
The developer (Portrait Homes) is seeking a site-specific zoning text amendment to permit an
increase in total gross floor area on site (i.e. 0.64 FSR instead of 0.6 FSR permitted) which
translates to 61 units or a density of 49.98 units per net hectare. As a compensation for the
increased gross floor area on site, the developer is offering an amenity in the form of a new sidewalk
located on the west side of 236 Street between 132nd Avenue and Fern Crescent (Appendix D).
-9-
It is recommended that that second reading be given to Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.
7037-2013 (Appendix B), and that application 2013-082-RZ be forwarded to Public Hearing.
"Original signed by Rasika Acharya"
Prepared by: Rasika Acharya, B -Arch, M -Tech, UD, LEED® AP, MCIP, RPP
Planner
"Original signed by Christine Carter"
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
"Original signed by David Pollock" for
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Subject Map
Appendix B - Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7037-2013
Appendix C - Proposed Site Plan
Appendix D - Proposed Sidewalk up to Fern Crescent
Appendix E - Proposed typical Building Elevations and Streetscapes
Appendix F - Proposed Landscape Plan and details
- 10 -
APPENDIX A
r'23 Lc�`�7
313339
13340 c''�
413343
9��'
ch
13346 15
h� 24 `1, 4i
2 13335
1333625
"
3 13339
N
CL
13340 16
O 0 6
180 • � , `'�' rb 25 9,, �ti rt,
5
e�1-
1 13330 1333226 W
2 13335
W
133:{fj 17
100 RSO O 6 016 �O rtrb
,
I'�'��
1 13331
13332 18
��� h° tib �'b .c?7 x,0931 5 e. ry'33
17
20`O O li . 2 ; 12
h '' 9 �� ti0
1013327 13328 11 •
13325
13326 19
01 •
16 `t' _o-ob I, 106'72 �� X12$
2?
913321
13322 1
13319
13320 20
O
15 `7 ti000 X10 ,� 30 3
4i
813317
13318 1 0
17
13312 21'
14 13 ti` 31 23?3$
42
z:
_
13313
14•�
8
9
10
11z3sa732
,8
13309
13312
rfo
1/
o
2
c'�
3
N
4
rn
N
5
r
co
6
to
c
7
M
m
rn
m
r
r
to
oo
23691
2`•
23746co
rn
�s,,B lit3
CO
m
CO
N
m
CO
N
m
CO
N
m
CO
N
co
coN
N
m
N
mCO CO
N
m
N
m
N CO
co
N
23697 33
1513305
:1M
s
N PJ.
133 AVE.
�w �('j�
13295
SUBJECT PROPERTY
2N
289
1
or
8
N
6Eg13283
I
LO
- — — 24 N
N
25
26
W 13277
1
Lo
Lo
co
N
P 40978
13245
39
I
1 1
I I
I
I
21
P 47603
13260
B
o
rn
coa
P
1
23
4892
33
35
I, 35
A 13227
� '‘
N
P 47603
20
A
to
Lo
—
N-
co \.-. 13215
d
\94
*PP157
j 4
i
I
22
�o
co
M
N
M
N
r
co
N
r
N
,.�
_
co
P 2637 N
Rem 1
w
N
Scale:
1:2,000
City._.f Pitt- __
Mea .,ows_ '
1111-,
Aro
T
I. =
13260 236 STREET
iii
14 -
`'`''_°"�
�''�
' a
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
11 _Elp
' '-
=
-id
:in
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columbia
MAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
District of
S\".-_
Langley
g y .
,
DATE: Aug 15, 2013 FILE: 2013 082 RZ BY: PC
_- no
FRASER
R. ��
APPENDIX B
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 7037-2013
A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part
of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985
as amended;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple
Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7037-2013."
2. That PART 6 - RESIDENTIAL ZONES, Section 602, RM -1 (Townhouse Residential
District) Subsection 5, DENSITY, is amended by deleting in its entirety and replacing with
the following:
a) All buildings and structures shall not exceed a floor space ratio of 0.6 times the net
lot area, excluding a maximum of 50m2 of habitable basement area.
b) Notwithstanding the above, all buildings and structures shall not exceed a floor
space ratio of 0.64 times the net lot area, excluding a maximum of 50 m2 of
habitable basement area, for the parcel or tract of land described as 13260, 236th
Street (Lot 21 Section 28 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 47603).
3. That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as:
Lot 21 Section 28 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 47603
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1599 a copy of which is attached hereto and
forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to RM -1 (Townhouse Residential).
4. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached
thereto are hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time the 10th day of December, 2013.
READ a second time the day of , 20
PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 20
READ a third time the day of , 20
ADOPTED the day of , 20
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
13370 in
I `N23
23 W
[Lb
'P 12189 236
'13356 0W "'
4 i
N
13346
I d 13351
13 21 ry's6• c� ,�09 9 S 1
65
d 4
I
6^a
\ ��
13360
W 13341
I 513347
13350 14
6°� 22 ,� 8
�,�
a
3
I
24
55
3
1334025
1
6�
133502
13339
IM
N
313343
13346 15
` �9`' 8 ti`'^°9
6c,^2X24
�,�, 640
18 nom
I d 2 13335
13336 0
13339
13340 16
25 7^ti
6�o e X65 �` �� 5
BCS577I
W 13331
1333226W
213335
W
13336 17
'' b6 Ry 0 6 <A�_ 6 ,,6 r
1
t6 14' 21.,2,Ag�
13336/40
1 — _EP' .002
— —
1 13331
13332 18
��3
'6h GP Ar
h0 4
17 6 S2 5,�Ati° '�'
o4'4,
co
~
oI
co
X66 92�
e
EPP 9002
h
10
13327
13328 11.
W 13325
13326 1981
Gym 6A
16 co- V6 j2* On; 4�Za
/031
co
1913321
13322 12
I � 13
13320 20 I
1'6;
$
2
15 66� 6 6�� 30 3
ow
1
19
Ia
to
61ti
w`' \ 6
14 126
Rem 3
Ic83317
13318 d
17
d
13312 21 %�
CP3 631• 317n2
23743
P 3007
13313
.14
W 13315
/
_
1
8
9
10
23687 I 23
11
I 0-
�N
1'6
13312
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
32
23691
_ —2—
23745
PP X4138
1 W 13309
I �i
�y
2yy
7y
co
Iii
2374.23747
1 i
5 13305 '\sem •' •
+�
N
\
N
N
N
N
t�
tV
IV
I
M�
N
£3
/
3
23697
1
I gqq0,f ,
�-.-��1Z"
n
LMP 35468
iP 15218
4
33 AVE.
RemA
\�\
G\APJE:.4..
pg -G,
'' 27 .a
X 11179' BCP 11178 ` 1 H
'"
_N-
113295bit
co
£3
. � �,'
�a
1 1410,_
49
B
(D
M
PARK
P 52028 Q' 24 N l
‹
2 11
25
2622
�
3237
P 112
n
0
.n
R
38
P 40978
13245
39
21
P 47603
13260
B
co
m
P
23
48925
24
N
0
U
32
*PP159
33
35
13227
1–
co
co
P 47603
20
A
I�
I
I N.
1
a
I U
I00
N
Nr
ch 13215
4co
d 347-,
*PP157
22
Ip
N
M
N
M
N
N
,n
M
N
I
I
LO
"'
N
132 AVE.
Lo
a
CO
N
LMP 38113 —�
-/
CO
P 2637 N
Rem 1
N
M
N
1
/
13165
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING
Bylaw No. 7037-2013
Map No. 1599
From: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential)
RS -2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
To: RM -1 (Townhouse Residential)
L\
N
SCALE 1:2,500
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columbia
Rem.Pcl..G.
Hef.Plan 1804
39
Plan 409]8
-----I
133 AVENUE
11
Ai I NM MN
%pito h Fmk k
I_ =mom " I■■®I '� I®11161 09=01 12=21 =PIM r
■® i■■�I io■®, II■li
INTERNAL DRIVEWAY �u
■U■■III•.
■■■■I jam. ilNIII�
a ® a
11-9
E
ti
■1m■11■m■
I■!1.1111■III■■■■I
I■■I■11■■
APED PLAN FOR
APING DETAILS
Jnrenmo.a
APPENDIX C
BUILDING HEIGHT MATRIX
BUILDING
UNIT NO.
MAX. HEIGHT
11.5m
2
11.5m
2
11.5m
11.5m
11.5m
11.5m
4
11.5m
11.5m
9
11.5m
10
I I.5m
11.5m
2
1 I.5m
13
I I.5m
4
11.]5m
11.5m
6
11.75m
]
11.5m
11.5m
9
1 I.75m
20
I I.5m
21
11.5m
22
11.75m
23
11.5m
24
11.5m
25
11.5m
10
26
11.5m
27
11.5m
28
I I.75m
29
11.5m
30
11.5m
31
11.5m
32
11.5m
33
113m
34
I13m
12
35
11 3m
36
11 .5m
37
113m
38
I13m
39
113m
13
40
11.5m
41
11.75m
42
1 I.75m
43
113m
14
46
11.5m
45
11.75m
46
11.75m
47
11 3m
48
I13m
15
49
11 3m
50
11.75m
51
11.75m
52
11 3m
16
53
11.]5m
54
I I.75m
55
11.75m
56
11.75m
57
11.]5m
17
58
11.75m
59
1 I.75m
60
11.]5m
61
11.]5m
O' NOTE: AREAS IN DARKER GREEN IDENTIFY
USABLE OPEN SPACE (UOS) AND COMMON
- _
ACILVITY AREA (CAA).
A
Plan 23]98
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1:300
NORTH
revision
dab
description
issueJuly312013 Issued for Rezoning
Nov10 2013 Reissued fa -Rezoning
:
feb 2s x014 Relzsuetl fw =Z
El
Burrowes Huggins Architects
project
ROCKRIDGE
Maple Ridge. B.C.
1)0T'1TOS41 IIrmieo
seal
seal
MCH/PH
October 2012
checked
as noted
PrefMno.
P-397
sheet tine:
Site Plan
P -Piens 4019 wox
A1.02
0
v
20
r
M
N ^
u
—
C)
M 13215
a 34
"PP157
22
`-
o
N
N
M
N
N
0
2 A E \1 N
132 AVE
N
y
N
105
13165
N
P 2637 N
Rem 1
O
N
18
ARK
P 1105
EP 13725
A
13160
P 2637
4
17
P 1105
I—
(%)
8
co
13144 co
PARK
PS
16 CO
PARK
co
a
7
13104
co
co
co
IL
380 Metres
6
\\
\
P 6734
AD
P
6734
I-
CO
CO
N
13084
P
1
13034I�
7739
2
M
3
N
P 7739
4
M
N
D
N
5
M
N
P 2637
W 1/2 15
m
M
\
E 1/2 15
r
M
N
P1
M
M
N
B g9
111
Q
E
F
O 01 m P 17199
L
N
NNM
N
1
EN-V)
A P2637
Q
Cr'
"N
Rem
NoM
aD
N
Scale: 1:2,500
CI
Mea..ws
.f Pitt_
iiiiiilitkimplitit
'
n
o
I� ;
Proposed Sidewalk
4
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
°t�"` nzm
1,
lov.
i
�' 01
=!"1►
! `
1.:�
I
MAPLE RIDGE MAPLE RIDGE
7 District of IN1
BriilshCaWmhfa PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Langley rr
�`�__--
DATE: Sep 17, 2013 BY: DT
FILE: 236_ProposedSidewalk.mxd
FRA SER
Rr,r ��
ir 4700
•
rt.& • ts7
Damax Consultants Ltd.
103-1600 West Gtr Ave.
Vancouver, B.C. V6J 1R3
Tel. 224-6827 Fax 689-3880
h1v
!
('I\ -it. iS orm .4fcnhoi;,
? .. _ !S''
Pa
Prk
I ••
rCD
lac;
fess Of Asphcif
h
Tore%.
isvegeN
Pmci�L
rad PJ
(Sat
Mikaarte • CP..)
lGil M
W-bacia-VatalaCio
ceikkv9r
Q, rap
`Wfiticttly)
•
4}-0915
+1-44
•
t
R•
•
Pr►rierer
efitnegt
•
01)
i.
1
\C)`
``f\� x •'
;ti,; ,
•
•
4`'54
•
fre tel
o4
ler
1
coni"ow 1dorho:..
Rim Dever -28.51,7i
A
01 01 01 01 01 01
I I i I i I
EL ]].1 Arn
EL 76.850m I -
11.5M HEIGHT
II!!1-11111 II!!!1 ILI! I -1 SII IS
11111111 IIIIII IIIII'IIIIII ''. I IIIIIIIISIIIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIII ,",,°,"":, IIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII;I IIIIIIIISIIIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIII ,",,°,"":, IIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIIIISIII IIIIII
EL 65 350m
ED1
I1.5M HEIGHT
▪ SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
T
BEARING
LEVEL
LEVEL
EL 65.650m
EL79.600m
LEVEL
▪ NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
APPENDIX E
EL 68 100m
IEL 65.350m
EL 65.650m
BEARING
111111111111111111
WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16" = I'-0"
115MMEIGH1
LEVEL
miimim .vcns vEL x oo�650m
®wo
1
I
•
1
revisions:
dab
description
- issue:
July 31.13Issued for Rezoning
Jan. 2010 Reissued for R..eang
El
:v�"y.'05,��iio.wsm°",�°.ati`o inoa�os
project
ROCKRIDGE
Maple Ridge. B C.
PUT lri.li IIIE,IY..E3
MARIN� r
8
VELS 4
EL 68.400m
I hh
LEVEL I `V
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16"= 1'-0"
ELEVATIONS BUILDING 14
seal
seal
wn
H/PH
checked
El ale
sheet tine:
Elevations Building 14
ay 2013
P-397
A5.14
0
01
SM H GHi
___ _— 4\ EL83.350m
EL 62.150m
E MEI
1111111: 1""1"111 11111111
""1l 11111111111111 III
=1!®11111
i ll"'"11111 1111111111111111
nEAST ELEVATION
SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0"
01
________________I
EL 83.350m / I I_5M HEIGHT
j EL 81.950m
1
T BEARING
LEVEL
LEVEL
LEVEL
EL 70.450m
nWEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16"— I'-0"
EL 81 95,'
nNORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16"= 1'-0"
BEARING
LEVEL
EL 70.650m
nSOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16" 1'-0"
EL 2
.44
ELEVATIONS BUILDING 7
revisions:
dab
description
issue:
July 31.13 Issued for
Jan 102010 Reissued for Rezoning
El
-=;=,,S=117.::=,
project
ROCKRIDGE
Maple Ridge. B C.
PUT [rill l I11I11YS
cor
seal
seal
ale
H/PH
ay 2013
checked
0-397
sheet tine:
Elevations Buildi g 7
P3E,Elevellons 4013,w
A5.07
0
0 00 o 010
EL
.550m
1 EL85.550m
BEARING
cap
I I� 11141
IVIII'nu 11111111 111111 11111111111111!111111'II"'
EL 74.050m
EL 77050m
.0
- r i1I
SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE 3/16' = 1'-0"
LEVEL
LEVEL 2
EL 77.050m
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
EL88.550m
1 EL 65.550m
WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
LE EL
E 74.050m
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16" I'-0"
BEARING
LEVEL
LEVEL
ELEVATIONS BUILDING 1
SEE STREET ELEVATIONS FOR VARIATIONS
FOR BUILDINGS 3,4 AND 5.
revisions:
dab
description
issue:
July
Reissued for Rezoamg
El
i ems. rieoe� a� aioo I��F inoa�o�
project
ROCKRIDGE
Maple Ridge. B C.
PUT rill l Il1E,lY..g,
cor
seal
seal
wn
H/PH
ale
0y 2013
checked
P-397
sheet tide:
Elevations Buda) g 1
A5.01
0
OCOMPOSITE NORTH STREET ELEVATION
SCALE 1 /16” = 1'-0"
COMPOSITE WEST STREET ELEVATION
SCALE 1 /16" = 1'-0"
revisions:
dab
description
issue:
July 31.13 Mu. for Rezoning
Jun202010 Reissued for Rezoning
project
ROCKRIDGE
Maple Ridge. B C.
1)6141-1.11[ I11I110;,
cor
seal
seal
H/PH
June 2013
checked
as noted
Rm.n P..:
P-397
sheet Me:
Street Elevations
Preraavarinsarawa
A5.20
3D Massing Street View Studies
revisions:
date
description
issue:
July 31 2013 Issued for Rezoning
ERFF=11,7=r,4'=;
11
TI,SaMtrag,
project:
ROCKRIDGE
Maple Ridge, DC.
1)(51411.11
COI
seal
RH
scow:
NTS
January 2014
proleeno.:
1,397
sheet title:
3D Massing Studies
P397-GrephIcShoeb.v.
sheet no.:
A8.04
revidon:
A
ploted: 1/15.II4 11:48:043.0.1
APPENDIX F
..°111111•11111_r410e-
Y0111.[2.
oe r
INTERNAL DR I WAY
INTERNAL DR [1
LPIL!I
.flEM11,1•1
.61
LY
-avat -gob sob
-1P-Abit. like v. wig% .111141k.
SHARP &DIAMOND
IANIMAPE ARCHI
Mml.ea 1101•••[•1=C,1,0....
TSMSCIIU rSflT
ummaimplImmul.
2.4,120.01.0.01•11020•200.1.11,141101, 0.202
M222,41•112002MIXIMM[0.1•XYMM.0110
Mre•MMI mrni Mr2•110 1..11.1.1[1:1,nncrunrs
2M,MMIKMM 121102.121010 MIIIMOM2 2.
032201,0.10.122, 0112M Von.. or n I liMIM02
M ...MM.:00100 2MM,M1102..4.12121102PM 2010
12.11.111112M,MIMMV•20 M•22•11, 002•112.rhi
.24112.21,, .20122111MTM•M 2.2 2122
M211•21.2
• 1.0312M 00212112M01
2 1.0312M 00212112M01
2 I. 03 OMM[022M21:2111.41- 1,-01-20
I I. 03 1:107011012
VI 0
REVISENS•
Por Int 11
ROCKRIDGE
TOWN HO NIES
2361,
64,3 le Rdse, BriLish lu me is
Sale: 1:200
Drawn: MITT
Reviewed: DS
Projed OS -342
LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN
L1.1
RETAIN EXISTING TREES
WHERE APPROPRIATE.
TREES TO BE REVIEWED BY
PROJECT ARBORIST
NEVPIAND.".100,01
FLAG STONE AROUND A FEATURE TREE
• • • DRY STREAM
STORMWATER SWALE
, pEwme VIEWPOINT WITH . • •
I.
1.1 16%'' 111,
-71 I lb
olimmna,
STEP STONES IN PLANTS
3 DETAIL PLAN 3(1 1.0r -(r.)
BENCH PRECEDENT
SHARP & DIAMOND
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
2305 Hen110Ck St, Va RC. Ve r BC, V6H EV1
T 600 681 3303 F 600 681 3307
www. s Ka m on el.co m
SHARP 0 DIAMOND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ING DOES
NOT GUARANTEE THE EXISTENCE, LOCATION. AND
ELEVAnON OF UTIUTIES AND / OR CONCEALED STRUCTURES.
AT THE PROJECE SITE.
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOP DETERMINING THE
EXISTENCE, LOUTION. AND ELEVATION Or ALL UTILITIES
AND / CONCEALED STRUCTVIRES, AND IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR NOTIFYING THE APPROPRIATE COWAN, DEPARTMENT
OR PERSON.. OF ITS INTENTION TO GARRY OUT !Ts
OPERATIONS.
4 ISSUED FOR DESIGN PANEL REVIEW 1.4.02-27
3 ISSUED FOR DESIGN PANEL
10-02406
2 ISSUED FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 14.01.20
1 ISSUED FOP REZONING 1.3-08.09
44.MM-00
REVISIONS
Portrail limes
ROCKRIDGE
TOWNHOMES
236th Street
Maple Ridge, British Columbia
Scale:
Drawn: DS/TT
Reviewed:
DS
Project No.
06-302
DETAIL PLAN
L3.2
r�kr p !n; -r
OPIp AoLLs
Grranr NFgi'HE
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 14, 2014
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2011-019-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Rezoning - First Extension
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6871 - 2011 and
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6864 - 2011
10515 and 10595 240 Street and 23950 Zeron Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The applicant for the above -referenced file has applied for an extension to this rezoning application
under Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879 - 1999. This application is to permit
approximately 48 units under the RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) zone.
RECOMMENDATION:
That a one year extension be granted for rezoning application 2011-019-RZ.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant:
Owner:
Brian Shigetomi , Atelier Pacific Architecture Inc.
Spencer Creek Ventures Inc.
Legal Descriptions: Lot 3, Except Parcel A (EPP 16557); District lots 406
& 408, Group 1, New Westminster District Plan 3825
OCP:
Existing:
Proposed:
Zoning:
Existing:
Proposed:
Parcel A (EPP 16557), Lot 3, District Lots 406 & 408,
Group 1, New Westminster District Plan 3825
Lot 9, District Lots 406 & 408, Group 1, New
Westminster District Plan 29456
Urban Residential
Urban Residential
RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential)
RM -1 (Townhouse Residential)
-1-
1104
Surrounding Uses
North:
South:
East:
West:
Use:
Zone:
Designation:
Use:
Zone:
Designation:
Use:
Zone:
Designation:
Use:
Zone:
Designation:
Existing Use of Properties:
Proposed Use of Properties:
Site Area:
Access:
Servicing:
Companion Applications:
Single Family Residential
RS -lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density)
Residential
Urban Residential
Vacant
RS -lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density) and
RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Conservation and Urban Residential
Single Family Residential and Conservation
RS -lb (One Family Urban (Medium Density)
Residential) and RS -3 (One Family Rural
Residential)
Conservation, Low Medium Density Residential and
Medium Density Residential
Single Family Residential
RS -1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density)
Residential)
Urban Residential
Vacant
Multi -Family Residential
1.98 ha (4.9 acres)
240 Street
Urban Standard
2011 -019 -DP, 2011 -019 -VP, and 2011 -020 -DP
This application is to permit approximately 48 units under the RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) zone.
The following dates outline Council's consideration of the application and Bylaws 6871 - 2011 and
6864-2011:
- first and second reading was granted October 25, 2011;
- Public Hearing was held November 15, 2011;
- third reading was granted on November 22, 2011.
Application Progress:
The Rezoning Application and Development Permit application proposed 48 townhouse units with
underground parking. The developer has since revised their proposal to eliminate the underground
parking component of the development and slightly revise the layout resulting in approximately 52
units. Due to the revised layout, a new Public Hearing will be required. This will be the subject of a
future report to Council.
Alternatives:
Council may choose one of the following alternatives:
1. Grant the request for extension; or
2. Deny the request for extension and require a new Rezoning Application.
-2-
CONCLUSION:
The applicant has been actively pursuing the completion of this rezoning application and has applied
for a one year extension due to the change in the development proposal. The additional year should
be sufficient time for the applicant to return to Public Hearing and complete the terms and
conditions of the rezoning application.
"Original signed by Michelle Baski"
Prepared by: Michelle Baski, AScT
Planning Technician
"Original signed by Christine Carter"
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP
Director of Planning
"Original signed by David Pollock" for
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng.
GM: Public Works & Development Services
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Subject Map
Appendix B - Second Reading Report
-3-
.5 •J
10717
® N N
Rem
Rem
', In
\'
'
324
U
(a_ 10719
2
U
m
2
3
L
)608
m 0699
107
AVE.
Od 0705
50
10 6e
49
325
v
^
^
30
10697
51 cc
0
rybo
ti
606
10695 M
m
m
M
31
c5ry 1
o`O 11 b
326
328 3
1 212
ECP
222
13894
232
242
10693
32
1psaa ^ 48 ti tx
327 9 2
04330
1 6
14
52 10682 < <- 12
33'
PARK 10680
10676
10683
47
3240
'1np 332
10660 7
2
10663
1068056
1067
LIN 1,13
10672
ry�4ry0 ��
10655
13
7
55
46
10sq '1, ry^��^ 333
Na.
BCP
2536
10670
M 54 -
X142
10662
?��ry� ?
n, ry
m3
8
�
9
10� 11
�,
10660 58
w H�a p 53 c L P511
z ry 45� N 44 42
2 vy,
377
m
N
m
N
,Cb 12
ry
59
0 0 „,3743
N N N
a
10650
N N
h� 91 ^I�•
� h• �v 1 106 AVE. 23 0 O�
3�0 1��
60
o
N
N
106 AVE.
yN
10640 0-
64
if w m M
pro`" ry 10,5-92 4 Mcy N N
ry Q M
'-
26 N
m 1= v
oa cn 16 4
N 25 N 10596 N
M
61 J
10630
65
��
72 0
N
0
N
cc
N
N
v
336 1a
ti^ 3 J
M 24
15
105867 Rem 3 10595
62
10620
6610621
to
N
73
74
39
2
38
N
3
^
.02
4X• ry
`b O 0
19ry ''')6-,0 ? 2
105j5
Q 26-7 o
V? 10585 10580 18 P 3825
o 23 co
U 10575 10574
10565 19 co
22 10568 20 U
0°
10610
63
67 1 71
6^\
^0
68 0 '�6 6Oe 70
0 69 p
_MP
5
105aS M a6 -6.M
10560
2S
S3
2j^4 1051
10,_
15
70535
10 52j
05/9
2
10558
o
70,568 s(� '
2 Q
705sp > - 33,530546,
105,54368 o N 352
10 66,9 c+) M
105363 0 Q 351
6
1052110528
10526361 350
.,.c.y
o
1p537
s
64
70,55
c,'"")-
21
10554
338
10 548
10 2 339
10536 340
341 0
•
A
2�s EP 16557
9
PARK
LMP 51537
10513
10516362 349
105ja 342
10511
P 29456
10515
10509
363 348
343
1p510
10503
10502
3647°s°s
104g2 toy
a
oy 344 J
BCP 8155
Rem. Pcl. A
)6oa9y '365 347
16N �� ���oP 1opg2
366
,0 345
Si
346 c—
06 ^o AN 'OP
,-153`b�6N^�6� ^oayo
5 Nee
clb ��
9
6 A Rem. Pcl. A
ON0.ti `o BCP 8155
31° 00
oR3
P 10921
6
10456
9
�1 ��6 9,01 pQ39
3s1 06 `0.031
35533869 sod 26
2 211 'o 0423
216 O 10415
31\
373
1p42610009
: CP
374 0
.__—.—__E147_5.9_
le
The onooguarra on teeof he regarding the accuracy
mak s
or present status of the information shown on
1 this map.
.,za95 270
10416 O
1 1 1 I
N
Scale: 1:2,500
Cit' _.f Pitt
Mea.ows_
---
__
Pillitilikm-
10515, 10595 240 Street
l'e
;2 23950ZeronAve
.fm
=
�s
elf.
Illrilft
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
-''^FR'
...I
-
�'' / . t
Iwtr_s`�
_
_a
'District
"�,,,,_-�
T,
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columbia
MAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
> of
i
'
Langley N rsi���
d
DATE: Apr 3, 2013 FILE: 2011-019-RZ BY: DT
mu/
FFRASER R. ��S
1AMLE RIDGE
encnnerwHa,a
u^rn :aai_
District of Maple Ridge
APPENDIX B
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: October 17, 2011
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2011-019-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: First and Second Reading
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6871-2011 and
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6864-2011
10515 240 Street, 10595 240 Street, 23950 Zeron Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received to rezone the subject property from RS -3 (One Family Rural
Residential) to RM -1 (Townhouse Residential) , to permit development of a 48 unit townhouse
development. The proposed rezoning from RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RM -1 (Townhouse
Residential) is in compliance with the Official Community Plan, however, an Official Community Plan
amendment is required to adjust the conservation boundary.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. In respect of Section 879 of the Local Government Act, requirement for consultation during
the development or amendment of an Official Community Plan, Council must consider
whether consultation is required with specifically:
i. The Board of the Regional District in which the area covered by the plan is located, in the
case of a Municipal Official Community Plan;
ii. The Board of any Regional District that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan;
iii. The Council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan;
iv. First Nations;
v. School District Boards, greater boards and improvements district boards; and
vi. The Provincial and Federal Governments and their agencies.
and in that regard it is recommended that no additional consultation be required in respect of
this matter beyond the early posting of the proposed Official Community Plan amendments
on the District's website, together with an invitation to the public to comment, and;
2. That Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6871-2011 be considered in
conjunction with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan;
3. That it be confirmed that Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6871-
2011 is consistent with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan;
4. That Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6871-2011 be given First
and Second Reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing;
5. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6864-2011 be given First and Second Reading and be
forwarded to Public Hearing; and
6. That the following terms and conditions be met prior to Final Reading.
i. Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and
receipt of the deposit of security as outlined in the Agreement;
ii. Amendment to Schedule "B" & "C" of the Official Community Plan;
iii. Registration of a geotechnical report as a Restrictive Covenant which addresses the
suitability of the site for the proposed development;
iv. Road dedication as required;
v. Consolidation of the development site;
vi. A landscape plan prepared by a Landscape Architect must be submitted including
the security to do the works;
vii. Park dedication as required;
viii. A disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising
whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks. If there is
evidence, a site profile pursuant to the Waste Management Act must be provided in
accordance with the regulations;
ix. Pursuant to the Contaminated Site Regulations of the Environmental Management
Act, the subdivider will provide a Site Profile for the subject land(s); and
x. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant protecting the Visitor Parking.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant:
Owner:
Atelier Pacific Architecture Inc Brian Shigetomi
Spencer Creek Ventures Inc
Legal Description: Lot: 9, Plan: 29456 Lot: 3, Plan: 3825 Plan: 3825
-2-
OCP:
Existing:
Proposed:
Zoning:
Existing:
Proposed:
Surrounding Uses
North:
South:
East:
West:
Use:
Zone:
Designation
Use:
Zone:
Designation:
Use:
Zone:
Designation:
Use:
Zone:
Designation:
Existing Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Site Area:
Access:
Servicing:
Companion Applications:
b) Project Description:
Urban Residential/Major Corridor
Urban Residential/Major Corridor
RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential)
RM -1 (Townhouse Residential)
Single family residential
RS -lb (One Family Urban (medium density)
Residential
Urban Residential/Major Corridor
Vacant
RS -lb (One Family Urban (medium density) and
RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Conservation, Urban Residential and Medium Density
Residential
Single family residential and conservation area
RS -1b (One Family Urban (medium density)
Residential)
Conservation, Urban Residential and Medium Density
Residential
Single Family Residential
RS -1b (One Family Urban (medium density)
Residential)
Urban Residential
Vacant
Multi -Family Residential
1.98 HA.
240t" Street
Urban Standard
2011-019-DP/VP
The subject site is characterized by steep slopes along the western portion of the property and a
tributary to Spencer Creek along the southern boundary. The land flattens out towards 240t" and
with re -grading provides an adequate building area for the 48 proposed townhomes.
There is an unnamed tributary to Spencer Creek located on the southern boundary of the site. A 15
metre setback is required and has generally been provided for this tributary. Due to the topography
of the site a small portion of the setback falls short of the 15 metre requirement. To compensate for
this an additional 160m2 area will be dedicated for the protection of the Tributary. Further
compensation is also to be provided through additional planting and stream enhancements. The
compensation measures will be addressed in the Watercourse Protection Development Permit.
-3-
c) Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan:
The Official Community Plan designates this property Urban Residential/Major Corridor which
provides for a range of densities in a ground oriented housing form, subject to satisfying the Infill
and Compatibility Criteria prescribed in the Plan. The proposed rezoning to RM -1 (Townhouse
Residential) is in compliance with the OCP designation, however, an Official Community Plan
amendment is required to adjust the conservation boundaries as depicted in the Official Community
Plan.
Zoning Bylaw:
In order to accomodate the current proposal the following Zoning Bylaw variances are required;
The above variances will be the subject of a future report to Council. The proposed variances are
supportable as they are typical for townhouse development in the area and are minor in nature.
Development Permits:
The application site is adjacent to Spencer Creek and is challenged with slopes greater than 25%
grade. A Watercourse Protection and Natural Features Development Permit is, therefore, required
for the preservation, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment of the watercourse
areas and of the natural features on the site. A Security will be taken as a condition of the issuance
of the Development Permit to ensure that the Development Permit area guidelines are met.
Pursuant to Section 8.7 of the Official Community Plan, a Multi -Family Development Permit
application is required to ensure the current proposal enhances existing neighbourhoods with
compatible housing styles that meet diverse needs, and minimize potential conflicts with
neighbouring land uses. Accordingly, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Development
Permit must be reviewed and approved. An application for the Development Permit has been
received. Adherence of this project to the guidelines of this permit will be provided for Council in a
future report.
Advisory Design Panel:
The current application was presented to Advisory Design Panel on July 14, 2011. The Panel raised
a small number of concerns related to the building design and building and landscape materials.
Since that time the applicant revised the drawings and resubmitted to the panel for acceptance in
-4-
Required
Proposed
Front Yard Setback
7.5 metres
4.5 metres
Interior Lot Setback
7.5 metres
4.5 metres
Building Height
10.5 metres
11.7 metres
The above variances will be the subject of a future report to Council. The proposed variances are
supportable as they are typical for townhouse development in the area and are minor in nature.
Development Permits:
The application site is adjacent to Spencer Creek and is challenged with slopes greater than 25%
grade. A Watercourse Protection and Natural Features Development Permit is, therefore, required
for the preservation, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment of the watercourse
areas and of the natural features on the site. A Security will be taken as a condition of the issuance
of the Development Permit to ensure that the Development Permit area guidelines are met.
Pursuant to Section 8.7 of the Official Community Plan, a Multi -Family Development Permit
application is required to ensure the current proposal enhances existing neighbourhoods with
compatible housing styles that meet diverse needs, and minimize potential conflicts with
neighbouring land uses. Accordingly, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Development
Permit must be reviewed and approved. An application for the Development Permit has been
received. Adherence of this project to the guidelines of this permit will be provided for Council in a
future report.
Advisory Design Panel:
The current application was presented to Advisory Design Panel on July 14, 2011. The Panel raised
a small number of concerns related to the building design and building and landscape materials.
Since that time the applicant revised the drawings and resubmitted to the panel for acceptance in
-4-
August 2011. The current design reflects these changes and has been accepted by the design
panel.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
On September 29th, 2011 the applicant hosted a Development Information Meeting at Kanaka
Creek Elementary School concerning the current proposal. Approximately thirteen people filled in
the attendance list and eight filled out a comment sheet. The residents in attendance were
concerned about increasing the traffic along 240th Street as it is already perceived as very busy and
unsafe especially at 240th Street and McClure Drive. There is also concern about development in
this area and the lack of school capacity available for existing residents.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
Engineering Department:
Concerns have been raised about the proposed site entrance off 240th Street. As a result the
Engineering Department requested the applicant to provide a traffic study to determine if a left turn
bay is required along 240th Street. The traffic study prepared by BWW Consulting dated April 7,
2011 has determined that no left turn bay is required for the proposed development.
Fire Department:
The Fire Department has no concerns with the proposed development.
Building Department:
There have been concerns raised regarding the grading and slope stability on the site. The applicant
is required to address all concerns related to lot grading and slope stability and a geotechnical
report will be registered as a Restrictive Covenant on title prior to Final Reading.
f) Intergovernmental Issues:
School District
A referral has been sent to School District 42. No comments have been received from the School
District at the time of preparing this draft.
Local Government Act:
An amendment to the Official Community Plan requires the local government to consult with any
affected parties and to adopt related bylaws in compliance with the procedures outlined in Section
882 of the Act. The amendment required for this application, to adjust the conservation boundary,
is considered to be minor in nature. It has been determined that no additional consultation beyond
existing procedures is required, including referrals to the Board of the Regional District, the Council
-5-
of an adjacent municipality, First Nations, the School District or agencies of the Federal and
Provincial Governments.
The amendment has been reviewed with the Financial Plan/Capital Plan and the Waste
Management Plan of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and determined to have no impact.
g) Environmental Implications:
A 15 metre setback has generally been provided along a tributary of Spencer Creek. An
Enhancement and Restoration Plan and securities for the work proposed is required before
issuance of the Watercourse Development Permit.
CONCLUSION:
The current application is in compliance with the Official Community Plan. It is, therefore,
recommended that First and Second Reading be given Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.
6864-2011 and Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6871-2011 and they be
forwarded to Public Hearing.
Prepared by: Sarah Atkinson
Planning Technician
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PI, MCIP
Acting Director of Planning
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Subject Map
Appendix B - OCP Amending Bylaw 6871-2011
Appendix C - Zone Amending Bylaw 6864-2011
Appendix D - Site Plan
Appendix E - Building Elevation Plans
Appendix F - Landscape Plans
-6-
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6871-2011
A Bylaw to amend Schedules "B" & "C" forming part of the
Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 6425-2006 as amended
WHEREAS Section 882 of the Local Government Act provides that the Council may revise the Official
Community Plan;
AND WHEREAS it is deemed desirable to amend Schedules "B" and "C" to the Official Community
Plan;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open
meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending
Bylaw No. 6871 - 2011.
2. Schedule "B" and "C" is hereby amended for those parcels or tracts of land and premises
known and described as:
Lot 9 District Lots 406 and 408 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 29456
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 816, a copy of which is attached hereto and
forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby amended by adjusting the Conservation boundary.
3. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No.6871-2006 is hereby amended accordingly.
READ A FIRST TIME the 25th day of October, A.D. 2011.
READ A SECOND TIME the 25th day of October, A.D. 2011.
SECOND READING WAS RECINDED the 8th day of November, A.D. 2011.
RE -READ A SECOND TIME the 8th day of November, A.D. 2011.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
READ A THIRD TIME the 22nd day of November, A.D. 2011.
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 20 .
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
0610 '
,-
N N N `•'
'10719
Rem
Rem
—igirmir
10717
d
o
324 -
a 3
g 29
m
2
3
LM " 51537
co 10608
m 10699
107 AVE.
10705
50
49 10
325
N 10606
o
cv
m
3010697
51 co
0
rn
ma,
rn
rn
31
�ry
326
3 3
10695 21 N
ECP
22N
1
23N
B894
24N
32
0683 ^p0 48
327 ? 9
10604 8 J
330331
6
110675
14
52
6$2��tih
PARK 106801068356
47
1________
ry 332
210660 71310663
10680106)3
pN
067
ry�cp �� au
^�lt 10666
57
55 ;'
-
ro �^ u;
N3 N°'ry�ro 3
74137
BCP
2536%
1067010662
54
:61
3N
oNo °�"3 U38
e‘? ry CO
j43 72 No
NI
9
1011
10660 58
vo'Mo
53 NL
z N N" 45�
P'.3
44
ry�y`b
377
re
m
N
0
N
N �c01 12
'L
59 r`
N o
N
0 0
N N
o309
10650
N
h. yvO 1106 AVE. 239 �O�60
3 CO • ry
om
106a AVE.
7� sr 0
co
10640 a
64 Er
N
N� ry�o`'`' co
ryb �0Ss2 4 Mh N co
Q or)m
c-0
26 N
cc
ca
m 16
N 25 2 10596
61
10630
N 65
7200
N
N
0
0
co
N
336^ v 1a
r.
0 3 J
(ID 24
17
10586 Rem 3 10595
62
10620
6610621
a
v
73
74
cc?
roN
N� �0 2
N ,-
248 9� J �O $ 0 M
24 o 2 N
7p5j5
Q 2$7
10585 10580
18 P 3825
a 23 op
U 10575 10574 19 co
10565
22 10568 20 a
,Yo U
,i, co
m
V
N
10610
63
N
67 71
•,^ os7
^p6 ,0 2
68 0 '0 60 70
o 6960 m
49 10560
Sss
2$34osss
2$4
<168 7os43
7o53
2$S
M10527
o
M257
10519
26-,,,
••
. Q.
70661 70$46-j
0
s •• 1
, •
. 4 10521
1 1
21 A
I so EP 16557
'
..
, ,
/
N
PARK
LMP 51537
258
10511
10516 • 513
362 1
P 29456
342
iosis
1
1 1•
63343
1
259 10502 '
10503
BCP 8155
Rem. Pcl. A
26° pa9y s
1 �TT ,
61 �� Opp
•'),
OrO�`°�,^ •• 0 Rem. Pcl. A
e
e 9, 6r«, �, X69
001\ a5o`� OP-„csOo BCP8155
P 10921
6
^
MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING
Bylaw No. 6871-2011
Map No. 816
From: Urban Residential
To: Conservation
./..."-\/.
N
SCALE 1:2,500
-11
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columbia
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. No 6864-2011
A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part
of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended.
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as
amended;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in
open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6864-2011"
2. Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as:
Parcel "A" (Explanatory Plan 16557) Lot 3 District Lots 406 and 408 Group 1 New
Westminster District Plan 3825
Lot 9 District Lots 406 and 408 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 29456
Lot 3 Except: Parcel "A" (Explanatory Plan 16557); District Lots 406 and 408 Group 1 New
Westminster District Plan 3825
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1544 a copy of which is attached hereto and
forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby rezoned to RM -1 (Townhouse Residential)
3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are
hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time the 25th day of October, A.D. 2011.
READ a second time the 25th day of October, A.D. 2011.
PUBLIC HEARING held the 15th day of November, A.D. 2011.
READ a third time the 22nd day of November, A.D. 2011.
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 20 .
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
0610
,- 10717
Rem
Rem
/ /324
3
10719
29
()
m
2
3
LM " 51537
�
10608co r-1325
10699
107 AVE.
••
50
1 325
m
2
3100705
Lo 49
51
N 10606
00
Ol
.7
CO
10697
0
310693
wry
'
326
32 3?9
10695 212
:
222
CP 1:894
232
242
32
70683 '1'
48
327
10604
33033'
6
110676
14
52 106$2
10680 —
10683
56
47
��ryy (PARK
ry \ 33
co 2 10660 BCP 25369
10663
10680
7p6j3
LIN
10672 Us
'ryry ry��ry �r5`5
�, ^�
y
10666
13
57
55 ` p$
46
,
vti3' �ryd 706 9 ti^�
,�,
N
—
536
_
@ -'
10670
v,
M 54 838\ 0 10662
4 v3� �ry� ^�°
ry
2j43 X372
U 3
mcc,
8
..
101 cO— 2$ 30
CO 1
J
LN1P51538
10660 58
v o`�'M 53 N" L P 51 '.
a ry ry� 45. 44
�ryb
r08ry�7`".10650
coco
oi
m
°
el
‘^ 12 /
N 0
59 r...
ry,o
00
N0309
NN
�• '�0y1106 AVE. 2399
r\t0
3'0
60
=
m
0
106 AVE.
10640 d
-
N
N� 70$6 4'� co co
rya ti�
/yip Q
0
26 2
16
2 25 N10596
61
10630
65
Rill
3
`\�8� 3�v^ 3
cry
co 1�
M 24
1058617 10595
1062062
66 10621
_P51538
o
,,, 7 ry 0ro^
? 4X' ry�
48 0S° h0
4 O 2$
2 9 ^ Q 2$ 7p
7 o
I d
I n 2 ^
M
r.i
Lr? 10585 10580 18
a 23 co n\
U 10575 10574 '
10565 19,S? �\
22 10568 20 ,
U
m
10610
63 .
67
1\\ 6,\\. 70572 71
<2i `. \\ r o �o
A �. 68 0 'om �o� 70
SSSS cP\68I
69'042:2%
p
o
�h0 7pco a6-6. 10560
565
)r4
,' 2
$0
26-47p
� h 2$$ 79
'76-6 70$3$
p 70$27
co 257
105/9
10519
7.5-, ` 03
o N
7o$6 70$6:99,56, ' Co 3$4
7 3 Q a �7
$$7 0$60$1 .386:;4646,
3 70$643$8 o N 3$7p$a>
706 $9 h M 10528
7053660 Q 351
10521
361 350
10526
21
556 10554
33;
Sa8 3
70? 39
10 34
sas 0
0)
w 7 p5 341 0
2a
'
- 16557
9
LMP 51539
PARK
LMP 51537 — —
r /
/
��
/7/ /�.
.,-
/
Z
258
10511
10513
10516362 349
3
70518 42
P 29456
10515
_
/
RW 66539 / ---
— a2�
10509
343
363 348 10570
1 i -
121 57
2.58 10502 384 , P 39 --
10503 10y0y 706. `'44 J
6
1p4gP
i VM
rn / / BCP 8155
CO / / 1
Z / Rem. Pcl. A
/
280 y s 35 365 347 h
345
100.9 M .c-.'
%,<, '0A"2;-/- 0 /
loN 4 346 / c
or—
1 / /
/ / /
1
\Q.01o�
\ �6�^3 �� 0°60 60 / co
\ff `y`O byo -0 Rem. Pcl. A / 2I
p� 6c,. ib ^0 60� 0/ J 7 i—
� � a5 oAyy ,b,A'l. ^� oa BCP 8155 a/ / // /
P 10921
6
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING
Bylaw No. 6864-2011
Map No. 1544
From: RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential)
To: RM -1 (Townhouse Residential)
/L.\
N
SCALE 1:2,500
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columbia
•
NOTE ALL DIMENSIONS HAVE BEEN CONVERTED
IMPERIAL TO METRIC AND ARE PROVIDED IN ROTI
DESIGN MINIMUM BASEMENTELEVATION TORE C
WHEN FINAL GRADING PLAN IS APPROVED.
IIIVIIilll1[1111lll
NORTH
1i Erez •�7, nit." '', r:� ,a.� r,�.,...I
t1I1_I� III��' PI
- 240 STREET
14
•
4
British Columbia
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: April 14, 2014
and Members of Council FILE NO: RFP-OP14-13
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole
SUBJECT: Municipal Equipment Purchase, One Single Axle Recycle Truck
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The approved Financial Plan includes funding for the purchase of a recycle truck. A public request for
proposals to supply one recycle truck resulted in four (4) submissions being received. Following a
detailed evaluation of the proposals, it is recommended that the contract to supply the truck be
awarded to Fort Fabrication and Welding Ltd. This is a replacement unit for a 2006 recycle truck and
is consistent with our normal fleet life cycle renewal procedure.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the contract for the purchase of one single axle recycle truck be awarded to Fort Fabrication
and Welding Ltd in the amount of $182,684.25 plus applicable taxes of approximately
$21,922.11, and a contingency amount of $10,000 and further, that the Corporate Officer be
authorized to execute the contract.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
A Request for Proposals (RFP-OP14-13) for the supply of one single axle recycle truck was
publicly advertised on February 19, 2014 and closed March 12, 2014. Four (4) proposals
were received and evaluated. The results of the detailed evaluations for best value
recommend award of a Walinga Champion Recycle Body on a 2015 Freightliner M2 106 Cab
and Chassis to Fort Fabrication and Welding Ltd. This is a replacement unit for a 2006
recycle truck and is consistent with our normal life cycle renewal. A conditional assessment
in 2013 allowed extension of one additional year of service before replacement was
required.
b) Financial Implications:
The cost of the truck is within the approved fleet replacement budget and project LTC#8218.
Total purchase price for the unit is $182,684.25 plus applicable taxes of approximately
$21,922.11, and a contingency amount for minor modifications if required of $10,000.
1105
CONCLUSION:
Following a public request for proposals, and analysis of the received submissions, it is
recommended that the contract to supply one recycle truck should be awarded to Fort Fabrication
and Welding Ltd. and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract.
"Original signed by Russ Carmichael"
Prepared by: Russ Carmichael, AScT, Eng.L
Director of Engineering Operations
"Original signed by Trevor Thompson"
Reviewed by: Trevor Thompson
Manager Financial Planning
"Original signed by David Pollock" acting for:
Approved by: Frank Quinn
General Manager, Public Works and Development Services
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columbia
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
District of Maple Ridge
His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin
and Members of Council
Chief Administrative Officer
MEETING DATE:
FILE NO:
MEETING:
Excess Capacity/Extended Services Agreement LC 156/14
April 14, 2014
E08-015-1062
06-2240-20
C of W
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A developer has subdivided land at Bosonworth Avenue and Carmichael Street. Part of the
subdivision servicing is considered to be excess or extended servicing in accordance with the Local
Government Act. The extended servicing benefits adjacent properties. Latecomer Agreement LC
156/14 provides the municipality's assessment of the attribution of the costs of the excess or
extended servicing to the benefiting lands.
RECOMMENDATION:
That with respect to the subdivision of lands involved in subdivision SD 102/03 located at
Bosonworth Avenue and Carmichael Street, be it resolved:
1. That the cost to provide the excess or extended services is, in whole or in part, excessive to the
municipality and that the cost to provide these services shall be paid by the owners of the land
being subdivided, and
2. That Latecomer Charges be imposed for such excess or extended services on the parcels and
in the amounts as set out in the staff report dated April 14, 2014; and further
3. That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal Excess Capacity Latecomer
Agreement LC 156/14 with the subdivider of the said lands.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
The attached map identifies the lands which are involved in the subdivision and those which
will benefit from the excess or extended services. The cost breakdown for each excess or
extended service is shown on attached Schedule A.
In addition, a copy of Excess Capacity Latecomer Agreement LC 156/14 is also attached for
information purposes.
1106
b) Strategic Alignment:
Administration of excess or extended services legislation complies with the Smart Managed
Growth element of the Corporate Strategic Plan. The administration procedure supports the
requirement for a developer to construct municipal infrastructure in support of land
development and recognizes that the infrastructure may provide benefit to other land.
c) Policy Implications:
Part 26, Division 11, of the Local Government Act provides that where a developer pays all
or part of the cost of excess or extended services, the municipality shall determine the
proportion of the cost of the service which constitutes excess or extended service and
determine the proportion of the cost of the service to be attributed to parcels of land which
the municipality considers will benefit from the service. Latecomer Agreement LC 156/14
will provide such determination for Subdivision SD 102/03.
CONCLUSION:
A developer has provided certain services in support of Subdivision SD 102/03. Some of the
services benefit adjacent lands therefore, it is appropriate to impose Latecomer Charges on the
benefitting lands. Latecomer Agreement LC 156/14 summarizes the municipality's determination of
benefitting lands and cost attribution and also establishes the term over which such Latecomer
Charges will be applied.
"Original signed by Stephen Judd"
Prepared by: Stephen Judd, PEng.
Manager of Infrastructure Development
"Original signed by David Pollock"
Reviewed by: David Pollock, PEng.
Municipal Engineer
"Original signed by David Pollock" acting for:
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng.
GM: Public Works & Development Services
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
TG/mc
TYPE OF EXCESS OR EXTENDED SERVICE
1. OVERSIZE WATER SYSTEM
SERVICE
Schedule A
# BENEFITTING COST OF COST PER BENEFIT ATTRIBUTED BY
LOTS BENEFIT LOT PROPERTY EXCLUDING
SUBDIVISION
Water Reservoir,
Pump Station &
Watermains
209 $3,389,562 $16,218
Page 1
Lot 2. NWP 2713
RN 84407-0000-3
1 x $16,218.00
Lot 4, NWP 2713
RN 84409-0000-4
2 x $16,218.00
Lot 5, NWP 2713
RN 84410-0000-1
2 x $16,218.00
Lot 6, NWP 2713
RN 84411-0000-7
2 x $16,218.00
Lot 8, NWP 8336
RN 84436-0000-7
5 x $16,218.00
Lot 72, NWP 56277
RN 84458-0200-8
1 x $16,218.00
Lot 1, NWP 23771
RN 84403-0100-5
2 x $16,218.00
Lot 3, , BCP39010
RN 84394-0102-0
8 x $16,218.00
Lot 7, , NWP 1363
RN 84393-000-1
4 x $16,218.00
E 1/2 of Lot 6, NWP 1363
RN 84392-0100-X
1 x $16,218.00
W 1/2 of Lot 6, NWP 1363
RN 84392-0000-6
1 x $16,218.00
Lot 4, BCP 39010
RN 84394-0103-0
8 x $16,218.00
Lot 5, NWP 37195
RN 84384-0200-8
2 x $16,218.00
SERVICE
Water Reservoir,
Pump Station &
Watermains
(Cont'd from
previous page)
# BENEFITTING COST OF COST PER BENEFIT ATTRIBUTED BY
LOTS BENEFIT LOT PROPERTY EXCLUDING
SUBDIVISION
209 $3,389,562 $16,218
Page 2
Lot 10, NWP 1363
RN 84396-0000-8
8 x $16,218.00
Lot 2, NWP 65405
RN 84397-0402-2
1 x $16,218.00
Lot 1, NWP 65405
RN 84397-0401-1
2 x $16,218.00
Rem. N/ofE/ofSW1/a
Sec. 11, NWP 37195
RN 84384-0000-0
9 x $16,218.00
W 135.31' of N 1/2 of E 1/2 of
SW 1/4 Sec. 11, NWP 37195
RN 84384-0100-4
1 x $16,218.00
Lot E, NWP 23702
RN 84397-0500-1
4 x $16,218.00
Lot 56, NWP 39169
RN 84468-0300-8
1 x $16,218.00
Lot 57, NWP 39169
RN 84468-0400-1
1 x $16,218.00
Parcel A, Ex. Plan 30870
RN 84468-0100-0
2 x $16,218.00
Lot 41, NWP 35648
RN 84467-0300-2
1 x $16,218.00
Rem Lot 25, NWP 32801
RN 844670100-5
1 x $16,218.00
Lot 6, NWP 17459
RN 84461-0200-6
3 x $16,218.00
Lot 5, NWP 17459
RN 84461-0100-2
1 x $16,218.00
Lot 1, NWP 2713
RN 84406-0000-8
2 x $16,218.00
2. ONSITE SERVICE FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY
SERVICE
# BENEFITTING COST OF COST PER BENEFIT ATTRIBUTED BY
LOTS BENEFIT LOT PROPERTY EXCLUDING
SUBDIVISION
Roadworks on 112 35 $506,345.00 $14,467.00 Lot 3, BCP39010
Avenue and RN 84394-0102-0
Bosonworth Ave. 1 x $14,467.00
Lot 56, NWP 39169
RN 84468-0300-8
1 x $14,467.00
Pcl. A, Ex. Plan 30870
RN 84468-0100-0
2 x $14,467.00
Lot 41, NWP 35648
RN 84467-0300-2
1 x $14,467.00
Rem. Lot 25, NWP 32801
RN 84467-0100-5
1 x $14,467.00
Lot 6, NWP 17459
RN 84461-0200-6
3 x $14,467.00
Lot 5, NWP 17459
RN 84461-0100-2
1 x $14,467.00
Lot 1, NWP 2713
RN 84406-0000-8
1 x $14,467.00
Page 3
A total of all of the aforementioned services for each property is as follows:
Property
Amount of Benefit
Lot 2, Sec 12, TP 12 NWP 2713
RN 84409-0000-3
$16,218.00
Lot 4, Sec 12, TP 12 NWP 2713
RN 84409-0000-4
$32,436.00
Lot 5, Sec 12, TP 12 NWP 2713
RN 84410-0000-1
$32,436.00
Lot 6, Sec 12, TP 12 NWP 2713
RN 84411-0000-7
$32,436.00
Lot 8, Sec. 13, TP 12, NWP8336
RN 84436-0000-7
$81,090.00
Lot 72, Sec 14, TP 12, NWP 56277
RN 84458-0200-8
$16,218.00
Lot 1, Sec 11, TP 12 NWP 23771
RN 84403-0100-5
$32,436.00
Lot 3, Sec.11, TP 12, BCP39010
RN 84394-0102-0
$144,211.00
Lot 7, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 1363
RN 84393-000-1
$64,872.00
E 1 of Lot 6, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 1363
RN 84392-0100-X
$16,218.00
W 1/2 of Lot 6, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 1363
RN 84392-0000-6
$16,218.00
Lot 4, Sec. 11, TP 12, BCP 39010
RN 84394-0103-0
$129,744.00
Lot 5, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 37195
RN 84384-0200-8
$32,436.00
Lot 10, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 1363
RN 84396-0000-8
$129,744.00
Lot 2, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 65405
RN 84397-0402-2
$16,218.00
Lot 1, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 65405
RN 84397-0401-1
$32,436.00
Rem. N 1/2 of E 1 of SW 1/4 Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 37195
RN 84384-0000-0
$145,962.00
W 135.31' of N 1/2 of E 1/2 of SW 1/4 Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 37195
RN 84384-0100-4
$16,218.00
Lot E, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 23702
RN 84397-0500-1
$64,872.00
Lot 56, Sec. 14, TP 12, NWP 39169
RN 84468-0300-8
$30,685.00
Lot 57, Sec. 14, TP 12, NWP 39169
RN 84468-0400-1
$16,218.00
Pcl. A, Sec 14, TP 12, Ex. Plan 30870
RN 84468-0100-0
$61,370.00
Lot 41, Sec 14, TP 12, NWP 35648
RN 84467-0300-2
$30,685.00
Rem. Lot 25, Sec. 14, TP 12, NWP 32801
RN 84467-0100-5
$30,685.00
Lot 6, Sec. 14, TP 12, NWP 17459
RN 84461-0200-6
$92,055.00
Lot 5, Sec. 14, TP 12, NWP 17459
RN 84461-0100-2
$30,685.00
Lot 1, Sec. 12, TP 12, NWP 2713
RN 84406-0000-8
$46,903.00
Page 4
DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY
BENEFITTING PROPERTIES
N
100 AVE.
LOUGHEED HWY �_��
SCALE:
N.T.S.
MAPLE RIDGE
British Cdumhle
CORPORATION OF THE
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT
EXCESS CAPACITY/EXTENDED
SERVICES AGREEMENT
LC 156/14
DATE: FEB 2014
FILE/DWG No LC156-2014
EXCESS CAPACITY LATECOMER AGREEMENT
LC 156/14 -- SD/102/03
THIS AGREEMENT made the day of , 2014
BETWEEN: Grant Hill (GP) Ltd.
15080 North Bluff Road
White Rock, BC V4B 5C1
(Hereinafter called the "Subdivider")
AND:
OF THE FIRST PART
THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE, a Municipal Corporation under the "Municipal Act",
having its offices at 11995 Haney Place, in the Municipality of Maple Ridge, in the
Province of British Columbia
(Hereinafter called the "Municipality")
WHEREAS:
OF THE SECOND PART
A. The Subdivider has developed certain lands and premises located within the
Municipality of Maple Ridge, in the Province of British Columbia, and more
particularly known and described as:
Lot 8 and 9, Plan 1363 and N.E. 1/4 Sec. 11, TP. 12 Except: Firstly Part Subdivided by
Plan 23771; Secondly: Parcel "A", Statutory Right of Way Plan LMP1489; Section 11,
Township 12, N.W.D.
(Hereinafter called the "said lands");
B. In order to facilitate the approval of the subdivision of the said lands, the Subdivider
has constructed and installed the road, water reservoir, pump station and water
mains shown on the design prepared by Vector Engineering Services Ltd. - Off -Site
Design, revision 4, dated 30 June, 2010, reviewed as noted by the municipality July
20, 2010 and the Off-site Waterworks design drawings prepared by Kerr Wood Leidel
Consulting Engineers, dated Aug. 2011, sheets W201 to W205, revision C, reviewed
by the municipality Aug. 24, 2011 Municipal Project No E08 015-1062.
(Hereinafter called the "Extended Services");
C. The extended services have been provided with a capacity to service the said lands
and other than the said lands;
Page 1 of 7
D. The Municipality considers its cost to provide the Extended Services to be excessive;
E. The Subdivider has provided the Extended Services in the Amount of
$3,895,907.00.
F. The Municipality has determined that
Lot 1, Sec. 12, TP 12, NWP 2713
Lot 2, Sec 12, TP 12, NWP 2713
Lot 4, Sec 12, TP 12, NWP 2713
Lot 5, Sec 12, TP 12, NWP 2713
Lot 6, Sec 12, TP 12, NWP 2713
Lot 8, Sec 13, TP 12, NWP 8336
Lot 72, Sec 14, TP 12, NWP 56277
Lot 1, Sec 11, TP 12, NWP 23771
Lot 3, Sec.11, TP 12, BCP39010
Lot 7, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 1363
E1/2 of Lot 6, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 1363
W 1 of Lot 6, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 1363
Lot 4, Sec. 11, TP 12, BCP 39010
Lot 5, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 37195
Lot 10, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 1363
Lot 2, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 65405
Lot 1, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 65405
Rem. N 1 of E 1/2 of SW 1/4 Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 37195
W135.31'ofN1ofE1ofSW1/4Sec. 11,TP12,NWP 37195
Lot E, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 23702
Lot 56, Sec. 14, TP 12, NWP 39169
Lot 57, Sec. 14, TP 12, NWP 39169
Pcl. A, Sec 14, TP 12, Ex. Plan 30870
Lot 41, Sec 14, TP 12, NWP 35648
Rem. Lot 25, Sec. 14, TP 12, NWP 32801
Lot 6, Sec. 14, TP 12, NWP 17459
Lot 5, Sec. 14, TP 12, NWP 17459
(the "Benefitting Lands") will benefit from the Extended Services;
G. The Municipality has imposed as a condition of the owner of the Benefitting Lands
connecting to or using the Extended Services, a charge (the "Latecomer Charge") on
the Benefitting Lands in the following amounts:
Lot 2, Sec 12, TP 12, NWP 2713
RN 84407-0000-3
• $16,218.00 for use of the municipal water system
Lot 4, Sec 12, TP 12, NWP 2713
RN 84409-0000-4
• $16,218.00 per lot to a maximum of $32,436.00 for use of the municipal
water system
Page 2 of 7
Lot 5, Sec 12, TP 12, NWP 2713
RN 84410-0000-1
• $16,218.00 per lot to a maximum of $32,436.00 for use of the municipal
water system
Lot 6, Sec 12, TP 12, NWP 2713
RN 84411-0000-7
• $16,218.00 per lot to a maximum of $32,436.00 for use of the municipal
water system
Lot 8, Sec 13, TP 12, NWP 8336
RN 84436-0000-7
• $16,218.00 per lot to a maximum of $81,090.00 for use of the municipal
water system
Lot 72, Sec 14, TP 12, NWP 56277
RN 84458-0200-8
• $16,218.00 for use of the municipal water system
Lot 1, Sec 11, TP 12, NWP 23771
RN 84403-0100-5
• $16,218.00 per lot to a maximum of $32,436.00 for use of the municipal
water system
Lot 3, Sec.11, TP 12, BCP39010
RN 84394-0102-0
• $16,218.00 per lot to a maximum of $129,744.00
water system
• $14,467.00 for a direct driveway access to 112 Ave
the one existing access and is within the area from
60m west of the east property line
for use of the municipal
nue that is in addition to
the east property line to
Lot 7, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 1363
RN 84393-000-1
• $16,218.00 per lot to a maximum of $64,872.00 for use of the municipal
water system
E 1/2 of Lot 6, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 1363
RN 84392-0100-X
• $16,218.00 for use of the municipal water system
W 1 of Lot 6, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 1363
RN 84392-0000-6
• $16,218.00 for use of the municipal water system
Page 3 of 7
Lot 4, Sec. 11, TP 12, BCP 39010
RN 84394-0103-0
• $16,218.00 per lot to a maximum of $129,744.00 for use of the municipal
water system
Lot 5, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 37195
RN 84384-0200-8
• $16,218.00 per lot to a maximum of $32,436.00 for use of the municipal
water system
Lot 10, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 1363
RN 84396-0000-8
• $16,218.00 per lot to a maximum of $129,744.00 for use of the municipal
water system
Lot 2, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 65405
RN 84397-0402-2
• $16,218.00 for use of the municipal water system
Lot 1, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 65405
RN 84397-0401-1
• $16,218.00 per lot to a maximum of $32,436.00 for use of the municipal
water system
Rem. N / of E 1/2 of SW 1/4 Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 37195
RN 84384-0000-0
• $16,218.00 per lot to a maximum of $145,962.00 for use of the municipal
water system
W135.31'ofN1ofE1ofSW1/4Sec. 11,TP12,NWP 37195
RN 84384-0100-4
• $16,218.00 for use of the municipal water system
Lot E, Sec. 11, TP 12, NWP 23702
RN 84397-0500-1
• $16,218.00 per lot to a maximum of $64,872.00 for use of the municipal
water system
Lot 56, Sec. 14, TP 12, NWP 39169
RN 84468-0300-8
• $16,218.00 for use of the municipal water system for a second service
connection if more than one connection is installed
• $14,467.00 for direct driveway access to Bosonworth Avenue
Lot 57, Sec. 14, TP 12, NWP 39169
RN 84468-0400-1
• $16,218.00 for use of the municipal water system for a second service
connection if more than one connection is installed
Page 4 of 7
Pcl. A, Sec 14, TP 12, Ex. Plan 30870
RN 84468-0100-0
• $16,218.00 per lot to a maximum of $32,436.00 for use of the municipal
water system for a second or third service connection if more than one
service connection is installed
• $14,467.00 per lot to a maximum of $28,934.00 for direct driveway
accesses to Bosonworth Avenue that are in addition to the one existing
access
Lot 41, Sec 14, TP 12, NWP 35648
RN 84467-0300-2
• $16,218.00 for use of the municipal water system for a second service
connection if more than one connection is installed
• $14,467.00 for direct driveway access to Bosonworth Avenue that is in
addition to the one existing access
Rem. Lot 25, Sec. 14, TP 12, NWP 32801
RN 84467-0100-5
• $16,218.00 for use of the municipal water system for a second service
connection if more than one connection is installed
• $14,467.00 for direct driveway access to Bosonworth Avenue that is in
addition to the one existing access
Lot 6, Sec. 14, TP 12, NWP 17459
RN 84461-0200-6
• $16,218.00 per lot to a maximum of $48,654.00 for use of the municipal
water system for a second, third or fourth service connection if more than
one service connection is installed
• $14,467.00 per lot to a maximum of $43,401.00 for direct driveway
accesses to Bosonworth Avenue that are in addition to the one existing
access
Lot 5, Sec. 14, TP 12, NWP 17459
RN 84461-0100-2
• $16,218.00 for use of the municipal water system for a second service
connection if more than one connection is installed
• $14,467.00 for direct driveway access to Bosonworth Avenue that is in
addition to the one existing access
Lot 1, Sec. 12, TP 12, NWP 2713
RN 84406-0000-8
• $16,218.00 per lot to a maximum of $32,436.00 for use of the municipal
water system for a second or third service connection if more than one
service connection is installed
• $14,467.00 for direct driveway access to 256 Street
Page 5 of 7
plus interest calculated annually from the date of completion of the Extended
Services as certified by the General Manager - Public Works & Development
Services of the Municipality (the "Completion Date") to the date of connection of the
Benefitting Lands to the Extended Services;
H. The Latecomer Charge when paid by the owner of the Benefitting Lands and
collected by the Municipality shall pursuant to Section 939 (7) of the Local
Government Act R.S.B.C. 1996, c.323 be paid to the Subdivider as provided for in
this Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE AS AUTHORIZED BY Section 939 (9) of the Local Government Act
R.S.B.0 1996, c. 323, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. The Latecomer Charge, if paid by the owner of the Benefitting Lands and collected by
the Municipality within fifteen (15) years of the Completion Date shall be paid to the
Subdivider and in such case payment will be made within 30 days of the next June
30th or December 31St that follows the date on which the Latecomer Charge was
collected by the Municipality.
2. This Agreement shall expire and shall be of no further force and effect for any
purpose on the earlier of the payment of the Latecomer Charge by the Municipality to
the Subdivider, or fifteen (15) years from the Completion Date, and thereafter the
Municipality shall be forever fully released and wholly discharged from any and all
liability and obligations herein, or howsoever arising pertaining to the Latecomer
Charge, and whether arising before or after the expiry of this Agreement.
3. The Subdivider represents and warrants to the Municipality that the Subdivider has
not received, claimed, demanded or collected money or any other consideration from
the owner of the Benefitting Lands for the provision, or expectation of the provision
of the Extended Services, other than as contemplated and as provided for herein;
and further represents and warrants that he has not entered into any agreement with
the owner of the Benefitting Lands for consideration in any way related to or
connected directly or indirectly with the provision of the Extended Services. The
representations and warranties of the Subdivider herein shall, notwithstanding
paragraph 2 of this Agreement, survive the expiry of this Agreement.
4. The Subdivider (if more than one corporate body or person) hereby agrees that the
Municipality shall remit the Latecomer Charge to each corporate body or person in
equal shares.
5. If the Subdivider is a sole corporate body or person, the Municipality shall remit the
Latecomer Charge to the said sole corporate body or person, with a copy to the
following (name and address of director of corporate body, accountant, lawyer, etc.):
Page 6 of 7
6. In the event that the Subdivider is not the owner of the said lands, the owner shall
hereby grant, assign, transfer and set over unto the Subdivider, his heirs and
assigns, all rights, title and interest under this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have hereunto affixed their respective Corporate
Seals, attested by the hands of their respective officers duly authorized in that behalf, the
day and year first above written.
SUBDIVIDER
Subdivider - Authorized Signatory
Subdivider - Authorized Signatory
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
Corporate Officer - Authorized Signatory
Page 7 of 7
4I
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columbia
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
TO:
District of Maple Ridge
His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: April 14, 2014
and Members of Council Committee of the Whole
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: Disbursements for the month ended March 31, 2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The disbursements summary for the past period is attached for information. All voucher payments are
approved by the Mayor or Acting Mayor and a Finance Manager. Council authorizes the
disbursements listing through Council resolution. Expenditure details are available by request through
the Finance Department.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the disbursements as listed below for the month ended March 31, 2014 now be approved.
GENERAL $ 6,190,706
PAYROLL $ 1,563,010
PURCHASE CARD $ 101,542
$ 7,855,258
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
The adoption of the Five Year Consolidated Financial Plan has appropriated funds and
provided authorization for expenditures to deliver municipal services.
The disbursements are for expenditures that are provided in the financial plan.
b) Community Communications:
The citizens of Maple Ridge are informed on a routine monthly basis of financial
disbursements.
1131
c) Business Plan / Financial Implications:
Highlights of larger items included in Financial Plan or Council Resolution
• Emergency Communications - Dispatch levy - 1St quarter $ 245,292
• Fort Fabrication & Welding Ltd. - Recycling truck $ 189,497
• Fraser Valley Regional Library - 1St quarter member assessment $ 630,132
• G.V. Water District - Barnston pump station $ 1,071,223
• SV Trucks (Custom House ULC) - Fire truck $ 802,604
•
d) Policy Implications:
Approval of the disbursements by Council is in keeping with corporate governance practice.
CONCLUSIONS:
The disbursements for the month ended March 31, 2014 have been reviewed and are in order.
Prepared by: G'Ann Rygg
Accounting Clerk II
Approved by: Trevor Thompson, BBA, CGA
Manager of Financial Planning
Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA
GM - Corporate & Financial Services
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
gmr
VENDOR NAME
Aecom Canada Ltd
Alliance Painting & Decorating
BC Hydro
BC SPCA
Boileau Electric & Pole Ltd
CUPE Local 622
Chevron Canada Ltd
Emergency Communications
Fitness Edge
Fort Fabrication & Welding Ltd
FortisBC - Natural Gas
Fraser Valley Regional Library
Fred Surridge Ltd
GP Rollo & Associates Ltd
Genesis Janitorial Service Ltd
Gr Vanc Sewerage & Drainage
Greater Vanc Water District
Innovyze
Jacks Automotive & Welding
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
MONTHLY DISBURSEMENTS - MARCH 2014
DESCRIPTION OF PAYMENT
Sanitary servicing for Albion Flats
Sanitary master plan
Sanitary subcatchments study
Cottonwood leachate pond & sanitary design
Greg Moore Youth Centre
Whonnock Lake Centre
Electricity
Contract payment
Maintenance: Banners
Brickyard office
Christmas decorations
Leisure Centre
Library
Municipal Hall
Operations
Pitt Meadows Athletic Centre
Pitt Meadows Family Rec. Centre
Port Haney wharf/tunnel
Riebolt Park
Service conductor replacement
Street Lights
Underground wiring replacement
Vehicle detection cameras
Whonnock Community Centre
Dues - pay periods 14/05 & 14/06
Gasoline & diesel fuel
Dispatch levy - 1st quarter
Fitness classes & programs
Recycling truck
Natural gas
1st quarter member assessment
Waterworks supplies
Albion land exchange consulting
Janitorial services & supplies:
Firehalls
Library
Municipal Hall
Operations
Randy Herman Building
RCMP
South Bonson Community Centre
License for residential transfer station
Transfer station waste disposal
Waste discharge industrial treatment fee - Cottonwood
Waste discharge permit administration fee - Cottonwood
Barnston pump station
Maple Ridge Main West PRV chamber
Sanitary sewer & drainage system hydraulic modeling software
Fire Dept equipment repairs
19,664
11,153
1,828
2,101
10,500
10,658
416
1,043
66
983
496
288
860
123
246
2,337
277
1,215
4,588
1,213
4,353
239
3,220
4,809
2,371
2,754
3,341
2,480
3,959
15,000
504
4,173
5,583
1,071,223
61,312
AMOUNT
34,746
21,158
126,935
27,925
18,742
22,972
73,021
245,292
16,361
189,497
32,287
630,132
18,759
19,061
22,934
25,260
1,132,535
16,922
16,994
Lafarge Canada Inc
Manulife Financial
Maple Ridge & PM Arts Council
Maple Ridge Carpet One
Maridge Properties Ltd
Medical Services Plan
Municipal Pension Plan BC
North Of 49 Enterprises Ltd
Pax Construction Ltd
Pitt River Quarries Ltd
Receiver General For Canada
RG Arenas (Maple Ridge) Ltd
Ridge Meadows Recycling Society
Safetek Emergency Vehicles Ltd
Sentis Market Research Inc
SVI Trucks (Custom House ULC)
Tetra Tech EBA Inc
Warrington PCI Management
Wholesale Fire & Rescue Ltd
Disbursements In Excess $15,000
Disbursements Under $15,000
Total Payee Disbursements
Payroll
Purchase Cards - Payment
Total Disbursements March 2014
Road salt
Employer/employee remittance
Arts Centre contract payment Mar
Program revenue Feb
Arts Centre telephone system
Municipal Hall flooring
Greg Moore Youth Centre flooring
Security refund
Employee medical & health premiums
Employer/employee remittance
Skating lesson programs
Renovations to RCMP Integrated Forensic Section
Roadworks material
Employer/Employee remittance PP14/05 & PP14/06
Industry Canada radio license renewals
Ice rental Feb
Monthly contract for recycling
Weekly recycling
Litter pickup contract
Recycling station pickup
Roadside waste removal
Travel for baler viewing
GST on SVI fire truck
Parks & Leisure Services survey 2014
Fire truck
Cottonwood landfill closure
Advance for Tower common costs
Fire hoses
PP14/05 & PP14/06
50,867
4,673
16,503
8,160
11,760
761,263
11,792
109,721
511
1,663
297
47
2,492
GMR
\\mr.corp\docs\Fin\05-Finance\1630-Accts-Payable\01-General\AP Disbursements\2014\[Monthly_Council_Report_2014.xlsx]MAR'14
45,359
146,156
72,043
19,920
83,890
38,181
373,442
20,558
123,805
18,571
773,055
57,255
114,731
40,130
15,593
802,604
20,347
60,000
16,110
5,533,280
657,426
6,190,706
1,563,010
101,542
7,855,258
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columbia
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
TO:
FROM:
District of Maple Ridge
His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: April 14, 2014
And Members of Council FILE NO:
Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole
SUBJECT: 2013 Consolidated Financial Statements
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The 2013 Financial Statements have been prepared using the accounting standards and reporting
model mandated by the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB). The statements have been audited
and will form an integral part of the 2013 Annual Report. In order to satisfy current audit rules,
Council must formally accept the financial statements before our auditors can issue their audit
opinion.
Two of the most important documents issued each year by a municipality are the Financial Plan and
the Financial Statements. The Financial Plan is a forward looking document that answers the
question 'what are we going to do over the next five years and how are we going to pay for it?". In
contrast, the Financial Statements focus on the previous year and answers questions about our
financial condition at a point in time and the activities that contributed to that result.
This report focuses on our Financial Statements for the fiscal year of 2013, explains key terms and
reviews each of the statements. Overall financial results for 2013 were positive. Our Net Financial
Position increased by $9.26 million to $41.98 million and our Accumulated Surplus balance
increased by $47.38 million to $909.59 million, the details of which are discussed in the body of this
report.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the 2013 Consolidated Financial Statements be accepted.
DISCUSSION:
Municipal financial statements are prepared using the accounting standards and reporting model
prescribed by PSAB. From time to time PSAB introduces new standards and the District adopts them
as required. In 2013, two new standards were adopted: "PS3410 - Government Transfers" and
"PS3510 - Tax Revenue". Neither standard had a material impact on reported results as our
previous accounting practices did not differ significantly from the new requirements.
The 2013 Consolidated Financial Statements present the District's financial activities during the
year and the financial position as at December 31, 2013. Actual financial performance is compared
to the Financial Plan used to set property taxation rates, adopted in May of 2013, and to prior year
results. The transactions reported in the consolidated financial statements are those that took place
with outside parties; the effects of internal transactions, such as transfers between reserves, have
been eliminated.
BDO Canada LLP has conducted an audit of the 2013 Consolidated Financial Statements and,
pending Council's acceptance of the statements, will finalize their audit report. The audit report is
Page 1of6
1132
"unqualified" which is the highest form of assurance that an auditor can provide and indicates that
the statements are free of material misstatements and that readers can rely on them for decision
making.
As noted above, financial statements report the financial condition of a municipality at a point in
time and there are a few key terms that are important to understand before drawing any conclusions
about our 2013 results:
• Net Financial Position: This is the difference between our financial assets and our liabilities.
It provides an indication of available financial flexibility. If the net financial position is
negative it is referred to as net debt and indicates that revenues that will be collected in the
future are needed to satisfy liabilities that already exist. If the net financial position is
positive it is referred to as net financial assets and indicates a greater degree of flexibility.
• Accumulated Surplus: This is the total of all assets, both financial and non-financial, less our
liabilities. The largest component of our assets is the tangible capital assets used in day-to-
day service provision; consequently, the accumulated surplus balance does not represent a
source of cash available to finance our day-to-day operations.
• Annual Surplus: This is the difference between our annual revenues and expenses. On the
revenue side, we include items such as grants and development revenues received as
funding for capital projects, whereas on the expense side the annual cost of using those
assets is recognized over time through amortization, rather than the amounts invested in
capital investment or renewal. This is why the reported annual surplus is high.
The District's financial statements include the following:
• Statement of Financial Position
• Statement of Operations
• Statement of Change in Net Financial Assets
• Statement of Cash Flow
• Notes to the Financial Statements
• Segment Report
• Supporting Schedules 1 - 6
The Notes to the Financial Statements provide additional information for the items found on the
Statement of Financial Position and the Statement of Operations and are referenced on each of
these statements.
A discussion of the financial statements follows.
Statement of Financial Position
The Statement of Financial Position is the public sector version of a balance sheet. One of the key
indicators on this statement is our Net Financial Position. It is calculated by subtracting all of our
liabilities from our financial assets and provides an indication of the extent to which revenues that
will be collected in the future are needed to satisfy the liabilities that exist today. It is one piece of
information that can be used to begin to assess the degree of financial flexibility a municipality has.
At the end of 2013, the District's net financial assets had increased from $32.7 million to $41.98
million, due to timing differences between revenues and related expenditures.
Another key indicator that appears on this statement is our accumulated surplus. Accumulated
surplus is the difference between all assets, both financial and non-financial, and all of our liabilities.
It represents the net economic resources available for service provision. It does not represent cash
that can be used to support operations, as the bulk of the number is comprised of the physical
Page 2 of 6
assets that are used in service provision. At the end of 2013, the District's accumulated surplus had
increased from $862.2 million to $909.6 million, due to factors discussed in the next paragraph.
Key items to note on the Statement of Financial Position:
• Combined cash and temporary investments and portfolio investments increased by $8.5
million. This is a result of increased cash balances available to invest as a result of timing
differences between planned and actual expenditures. (Note 1)
• Accounts payable increased by $3.3 million. Of this, $1.485 million relates to the accounting
expense associated with the closure plan for the Cottonwood Landfill. The balance is a
timing issue, with more capital progress draws recorded but not paid as at December 31St.
(Note 6)
• Debt decreased by $2.6 million as set out in the financial plan, due to the planned
repayment of debt, most of which relates to the Town Centre Project.
• Tangible capital assets increased by $38 million through a combination of developer
contributed assets and our own investments offset by disposals and annual amortization.
Statement of Operations
The Statement of Operations is the public sector version of an income statement, reporting revenues
and expenses for the year. The difference between revenues and expenses is the key indicator on
this statement and is referred to as the annual surplus if positive, or the annual deficit if negative.
The annual surplus, or deficit, indicates whether or not the revenues raised in a year were sufficient
to cover the year's costs. It's important to note that on the revenue side of this equation we report
all revenues earned in the year, including items such as grants received towards capital projects, but
on the expense side, we include only the annual cost of using our assets through amortization, not
the actual cash expended to acquire new or replacement assets. This timing difference results in an
annual surplus, but does not represent a cash surplus. For example, in 2013, the District received
contributed tangible capital assets exceeding $39 million that was recorded as revenue; on the
expense side the amortization associated with these assets was $238,000. In 2013, the District
recorded an annual surplus of $47.37 million.
Council will recall that during business planning we ensure that all the planned sources of revenue
balance to all the planned uses of revenues, resulting in a "balanced budget". Not all of the
elements that result in this balanced budget are included in the Statement of Operations as some of
them are internal transactions, such as transfers, that are eliminated for the purposes of our
summary financial statements and others don't meet the definition of an expense. For example our
planned investment in tangible capital assets will result in an expenditure of resources, but is not an
expense and not included on the Statement of Operations. The annual cost of using those assets is
an expense and is included on the statement. The reconciliation between the Financial Plan and the
Financial Statements is shown in Note 14 to the Financial Statements.
The following discusses actual results reported on the Statement of Operations for 2013:
Consolidated Revenues - Actual: $158.1 million; Budget: $163.97 million
Not all monies the District receives are recorded as revenues at the time of receipt. Monies such as
DCCs or Parkland Acquisition fees that are collected for specific capital works are recorded as a
liability when they are received. When we budget for capital expenditures that are funded from
these sources we also budget to record the revenue, which results in drawing down the liability. If
capital expenditures do not occur, no revenue is recognized and the funds remain on hand, recorded
as a liability.
Page 3 of 6
In 2013, consolidated revenues were below budget by $5.9 million. This is comprised of wide
variances in a number of categories, particularly in relation to capital. The following highlights some
of the key variances:
• Development revenues below budget estimates by $26 million
• Government transfers (grants) below budget estimates by $2.6 million
• Developer contributed assets in excess of budget estimates by $23 million
• Investment income in excess of budget estimates by $759,200
As noted above, negative variances in development revenues and grants do not represent a cash
shortfall as the related expenditures did not occur.
Consolidated Expenses - Actual $110.7 million; Budget $125 million
Expenses are comprised of general operating expenses for goods and services, labour, debt
servicing and amortization of our tangible capital assets. The actual cash expended to invest in
replacement or acquisition of assets is not reflected on this statement.
In 2013, consolidated expenses were below budget by $14.3 million. Key items contributing to this
positive variance include:
• Approximately $4.0 million in projects scheduled for 2013 that will proceed in 2014
• Overall cost containment
• Approximately $5.2 million in capital related projects
• $2.6 million in labour and succession planning costs
• $2.4 million from the RCMP contract.
Statement of Change in Net Financial Assets
The change in Net Financial Position in a year is explained by the excess or deficiency of revenues
over expenditures; if we recognize more revenues than we expend, then net financial position will
increase; if less, then it will decrease. This statement starts with the annual surplus and then factors
in the expenditures associated with non-financial assets such as the acquisition of tangible capital
assets and land bank properties. As noted above, the District's financial position increased by $9.26
million to $41.98 million, the details of which were discussed in the previous sections.
Statement of Cash Flow
The Statement of Cash Flow explains the change in the balance of cash and temporary investments
for the year. It shows the impact the various types of transactions have on the balance. For
example, the statement indicates that $21 million was generated from operating activities and that
$18.7 million was used for capital activities.
Segment Report
The Segment Report augments the information found on the Consolidated Statement of Operations.
The information is laid out in the same fashion, but provides a finer level of detail. Municipal
services have been segmented by grouping activities by function, as directed by PSAB. For example,
protection of the public is achieved by activities such as bylaw enforcement and inspection services
in addition to police and fire fighting services so all of these activities are reported as part of the
Protective Services segment. Revenues that are directly related to the costs of a function have been
reported in each segment, this includes revenues related to capital investment, such as government
transfers that are recognized in full when earned. Expenses are broken down into the categories of
Goods and Services, Labour, Debt Servicing, and Amortization. Amortization represents the annual
cost of using our assets in service provision, so while the revenue for a particular asset is recognized
at the outset of an asset's life, the expense of using that same asset will be recognized over time.
Page 4 of 6
The segment report allows us to see how each segment contributes to the annual surplus before
considering allocations of taxes and other municipal resources. As described earlier, annual surplus
is the difference between annual revenues and annual expenses.
The following table shows the Municipal departments included in each segment.
Reporting Segments
General Gov't
Protective Svc
Recreation
Planning; Public
Health & Other
Transportation
Water
Sewer
Human Resources
Clerks
Administration
Finance
Purchasing
Information Svc
Legislative Svc
Economic Dev
Communications
Police
Fire
Bylaws
Inspection Svc
Emergency Svc
Parks
Leisure Svc
Youth Svc
Arts
Library
Planning
Recycling
Cemetery
Social Planning
Engineering
Operations
Drainage
Roads
Water Sewer
The above discussion focuses on the Consolidated Financial Statements and, as noted, consists of
transactions with outside parties; internal transactions, such as transfers, have been eliminated. It
is also useful to look at some of the elements of the consolidated statements in isolation. The
following discussion touches on the general revenue fund, the utilities and the reserves. While the
statements don't show each element in isolation, aggregated information is shown on Schedule 1
and 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
General Revenue
It's important to look at the General Revenue Fund in isolation, as many of the activities discussed
during business planning are held in this area, and, to a large extent, the transactions that take
place in this fund drive property taxation. As noted above, the information in the statements does
not drill down to this level of detail, so while information is included in Schedule 1, it is part of the
aggregated information about General Revenue and the Utilities.
Council received a detailed report about the General Revenue Fund on March 3, 2014, noting that
preliminary 2013 General Revenue results were positive and, after providing for various projects and
initiatives identified for 2013 that will proceed in 2014 we expected a favorable variance to budget.
Final results for 2013 show a General Revenue annual surplus of $803.9K. General Revenue
Accumulated Surplus increased to $6.89 million, from $6.09 million in 2012.
Utilities
The Sewer and Water utilities are self-funded business units that manage the collection and
distribution of water and liquid waste as well as the related infrastructure. A large portion of the
costs in the utilities are driven by the Regional District and Council has used a rate stabilization
policy for a number of years to smooth the impact of regional cost increases on our rate payers.
Through this approach, we deliberately built the utility surplus amounts over time, so that when
larger regional rate increases take effect we have the capacity to manage those increases. The
planned 2014 rate increases are 5.5% for water and 4.6% for sewer.
The accumulated surplus amounts in both utilities increased in 2013, mainly due to work projects
that will proceed in 2014.
Page 5 of 6
The following shows the accumulated surplus amounts in each of the utilities.
2013 2012
Sewer Utility 3,183,533 3,139,776
Water Utility 5,802,444 4,004,157
Reserves
District reserves are an important financial planning tool, providing a mechanism to build capacity
over time to undertake strategic projects. They are reviewed on a regular basis to assess their
adequacy, with adjustments being made when capacity permits.
The term "reserves" is often applied to both our reserve funds and reserve accounts but there are
important distinctions between the two resources. Reserve Funds are statutory, meaning they are
established by bylaw. Once monies are placed into a reserve fund, they can only be used for the
purposes noted in the establishing bylaw. In contrast, Reserve Accounts are discretionary
appropriations of surplus, established to meet business needs. They can be established or
dissolved, as Council directs, to ensure that identified business needs are met and risks are
managed appropriately.
At the beginning of 2013, the District had $61 million in total reserves. The Financial Plan
contemplated these resources being drawn down by $25 million, primarily to fund capital projects. At
the end of 2013, the District reserves total $65.11 million ($32.15 million in reserve funds &
$32.96 million in reserve accounts, as shown in Note 15) an overall increase of $4.04 million. This
variance is the combined result of planned capital investment that will occur in the future, and end
of year provisions for various operating projects and initiatives. A separate report provided on April
7, 2014 detailed information on our reserves.
CONCLUSIONS:
The District's reserves are sound and long-term financial plans reflect the ability of the District to
meet its future obligations. Overall results for 2013 are positive. We ended the year with an annual
surplus of $47.37 million, Net Financial Assets of $41.98 million and Accumulated Surplus of
$909.59 million.
"Original signed by Catherine Nolan"
Prepared by: Catherine Nolan, CGA
Manager of Accounting
"Original signed by Paul Gill"
Approved by: Paul Gill, CGA
GM: Corporate and Financial Services
"Original signed by Jim Rule"
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Office
Page 6 of 6
MAPLE RI❑GE
British Columbia
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
District of Maple Ridge
His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 14, 2014
and Members of Council
Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Committee of the Whole
2015-2019 Business Planning Process
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The District has a comprehensive business planning process that is guided by parameters for the
development of the five-year financial plan. These parameters are set each spring so that the
following year's financial plan can be brought forward for Council's consideration in December.
This timing provides a number of advantages for both Council and the community. During municipal
election years however, this timing can be a challenge for incoming Council members who may not
have had previous exposure to the District's current financial information.
With municipal elections coming this fall, Council may want to consider changing the timing of the
process, so that the first order of business for the incoming Council will be setting the longer term
strategic direction. The next term of Council may also be extended to four years, making this change
particularly advisable.
In order to implement this change, an earlier and more detailed focus on the financial plan will be
required. In the coming weeks, when Council considers the amendment to the 2014-2018 Financial
Plan, we recommend that we spend time not only on the amendments impacting the 2014 tax
increase, but also understand what the revenue requirements for 2015 will be. By doing this, we
can deal with the 2015 budget in the coming weeks so that the incoming Council can focus on its
strategic direction as a priority.
As Council is aware, the earlier years of a five-year financial plan often include the phased impact of
prior years' decisions. As a result, there is more latitude in making changes to the latter years of the
plan than the earlier years. Having said this, the incoming Council may choose to go in a different
direction.
RECOMMENDATION:
That staff adjust the Business Planning Framework timelines as outlined in the staff report dated
April 14, 2014 entitled "2015-2019 Business Planning Process."
Page 1
1133
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
The District has a comprehensive business planning process that is guided by parameters for the
development of the financial plan. These parameters are set each spring so that the following years'
financial plan can be brought forward for Council's consideration in December.
There are a number of advantages to having a financial plan approved before the beginning of the
year. This includes certainty for both Council and the community about the service levels that are to
be provided. Citizens also get an early indication of the expected taxes for the coming year and this
will assist them in their own financial planning. As well, it gives staff the ability to start planning for
the works in the coming period. Council has already seen the favourable results of RFPs and tenders
that were issued early in the year. In addition to the pricing advantages, early award of the tenders
allows the works to be completed in a timely manner.
Municipal elections are held in November and the incoming Council is sworn in in early December.
Council spends considerable time in December going over the business and financial plans. The
financial plan is based on the direction set by the outgoing Council so the presentations to Council
for the most part wind up being an informational session about departmental workplans. Financial
information presented throughout the fall provides a strong foundation for this important work. This
context is critical in the overall consideration of the Financial Plan.
Based on this, Council may want to consider some changes to our process that allow time for the
incoming Council to focus early attention on our longer term strategic direction. A process along the
lines of the following can accomplish this:
December 2014
• Council Orientation including an overview of services provided.
January, February, March 2015
• Review of Community Survey Data
• Presentations from each division about the services that they provide and the results
that they achieve. They will touch on efficiencies and effectiveness initiatives
implemented in the recent past and will also identify areas to be reviewed in more
detail in the coming year. These reviews will include cross -departmental involvement,
and will consider best practices.
April, 2015
• Council to evaluate the Corporate Strategic Plan and make changes as required.
May, 2015
• Council to consider the budget guidelines for the 2016-2020 Financial Plan.
Following this process, the setting of the strategic direction becomes the priority for an incoming
Council. It appears that the next Council will be elected for a four year term. This is one more reason
why the incoming Council should focus on reviewing the strategic direction at the earliest opportunity
at the beginning of their term.
Page 2
In the coming weeks and prior to the issuance of the 2014 property tax notices, Council will be
asked to consider an amendment to our 2014-2018 Financial Plan. This is our normal practice, as it
allows us to adjust the financial plan in consideration of property assessment numbers from BC
Assessment. It is our expectation that the plan will include tax increases lower than what was
contemplated this past December. This is because we expect revenue from real growth to exceed
what was budgeted for.
When Council considers the amendment to the 2014-2018 Financial Plan, we recommend that we
spend time not only on the amendments impacting the 2014 tax increase, but also understand what
the revenue requirements for 2015 will be. By doing this, we can deal with the 2015 budget in the
coming weeks so that the incoming Council can focus on its strategic direction as its priority. As
Council is aware, the earlier years of a 5 year financial plan often include the phased impact of prior
years' decisions. As a result, there is more latitude in making changes to the latter years in the plan
than the earlier years. Having said this, the incoming Council will have the discretion to go in a
different direction if they so choose.
b) Desired Outcome:
The desired outcome is a business planning process that serves the needs of Council and the
community, while allowing the organization to meet legislative requirements around the financial
planning process and timelines.
c) Strategic Alignment:
Council's Corporate Strategic Plan addresses the need to review policies and process to ensure they
meet the needs of the community while addressing other influencing factors. In addition, it is our
normal practice to evolve the Business Planning Process to serve Council and the community.
Council members have in the past raised the issue of the business planning timelines being
problematic to new incoming Council members. This report's recommendation proposes to resolve
this issue.
d) Interdepartmental Implications:
Departments will continue to develop their business plans in alignment within the existing process
timelines. The timing of presentations to Council will take place during the first quarter of 2015.
The 2015 budget will require detailed analysis in the coming weeks, much earlier than would
otherwise be dedicated. This will require the Finance Department to shift workload internally to
accommodate the timing change, and may require other departments to provide budget inputs on an
earlier timeline. In addition, live -streaming a public question and answer session draws on IT,
Finance, Communications and support staff monitoring the media channels.
e) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The outcome of the recommendation will result in a shift in timing that we should be able to
accommodate within existing resources.
Page 3
f) Alternatives:
One alternative is to leave the process as it has been. This means that staff will prepare detailed
business plans for presentation to Council in December. In order to do this, Council would have to
set the budget guidelines for the 2015-2019 Financial Plan this spring. Leaving our process
unchanged is not recommended as the focus of the incoming Council should be on reviewing our
strategic direction.
Another alternative would be to postpone consideration of the 2015-2019 Financial Plan until after
Council's review of the Strategic Plan. This would mean that we would operate well past the first
quarter of 2015 without a refreshed financial plan. This is not recommended because of the
numerous advantageous of having a financial plan approved before the start of the year.
The advantages are:
• Certainty for both Council and the community about service levels;
• Early indication of expected taxes for citizens and businesses;
• Early opportunity to plan for upcoming projects;
• Pricing advantages and timely completion of construction works.
CONCLUSION:
The changes to our business planning process outlined in this report will better serve the needs of
the new Council as well as the community, while allowing the organization to meet legislative and
workplan requirements.
"Original signed by Laura Benson"
Prepared by: Laura Benson, CPA, CMA
Manager of Sustainability and Corporate Planning
"Original signed by Paul Gill"
Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA
General Manager, Corporate and Financial Services
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 4
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columbia
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: 14 -Apr -2014
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C.O.W.
SUBJECT: 2014 Council Expenses
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In keeping with Council's commitment to transparency in local government, the attached Schedule
lists Council expenses for 2014, updated to the end of March. The expenses included on the
schedule are those required to be reported in the annual Statement of Financial Information and are
available on our website.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive for information
Discussion
The expenses included in the attached schedule are those reported in the annual Statement of
Financial Information (SOFI), including those incurred under Policy 3.07 "Council Training,
Conferences and Association Building". Monthly charges for cell phones and iPads are now included
to make this report consistent with the information that will be reported in the SOFI. The 2013
expense report previously provided to Council will be amended to include this additional information.
"Original signed by Catherine Nolan"
Prepared by: Catherine Nolan, CPA, CGA
Manager of Accounting
"Original signed by Paul Gill"
Approved by: Paul Gill, CPA, CGA
GM, Corporate and Financial Services
"Original signed by Jim Rule"
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
1134
Schedule 1
2014 Council Expenses
Month of Event
Reason for expense Conferences & Seminars Community Events Mileage Memberships Business Meals Cell Phones / iPads Totals
Ashlie, Cheryl
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Bell, Corisa
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
iPad charges
iPad charges
RM South Asian Cultural Society - Annual Gala
Pitt Meadows Centenial Gala
LMLGA Conference - Whistler
UBCM Conference - Whistler
iPad & cell phone charges
iPad & cell phone charges
Cell phone charges
LMLGA Conference - Whislter
UBCM Conference - Whistler
Daykin, Ernie
January iPad & cell phone charges
February BCRPA Membership
iPad & cell phone charges
March Cell phone charges
April
May LMLGA Conference - Whistler
June
July
August
September UBCM Conference - Whistler
October
November
December
5.35
18.19
95.00
100.00
195.00 - - 23.54 218.54
93.09
93.09
53.50
239.68 239.68
60.00
228.85
54.37
98.50
78.83
58.84
283.22 60.00 236.17 579.39
Month of Event Reason for expense Conferences & Seminars Community Events Mileage Memberships Business Meals Cell Phones / iPads Totals
Dueck, Judy
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
iPad charges
iPad charges
LMLGA Conference
UBCM Conference - Whistler
5.35
5.35
10.70 10.70
Hogarth, Al
January iPad charges
February iPad charges
March RM South Asian Cultural Society -Annual Gala
April Pitt Meadows Centenial Gala
May LMLGA Conference 228.85
June
July
August
September UBCM Conference - Whistler 54.38
October
November
December
Masse, Bob
January iPad & cell phone charges
February BC Economic Development Assoc - Ministers Dinner
iPad & cell phone charges
March Cell phone charges
April
May LMLGA Conference - Whistler
June
July
August
September UBCM Conference - Whistler
October
November
December
39.59
18.19
95.00
100.00
283.23 195.00 - - - 57.78 536.01
55.64
125.00
89.88
50.29
54.37
179.37
195.81 375.18
Month of Event Reason for expense Conferences & Seminars Community Events Mileage Memberships Business Meals Cell Phones / iPads Totals
Morden, Michael
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Totals
iPad charges
iPad charges
RM South Asian Cultural Society - Annual Gala
Pitt Meadows Centenial Gala
LMLGA Conference - Whistler
UBCM Conference - Whistler
95.00
100.00
228.85
54.37
39.59
39.59
283.22 195.00
79.18 557.40
1,029.04 585.00
60.00 842.86 2,516.90
MAPLE RIDGE
British Co lumh la
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 14, 2014
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Committee of the Whole
SUBJECT: Review of Telecom Tower Protocols and Recommended Changes
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In November 2012 Council adopted a Telecommunications Tower Siting Protocol applicable to tower
building activities in Maple Ridge. Since that time, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM)
has endorsed a model tower siting protocol in February of 2013.
This memo reviews the FCM model antenna siting protocol and compares it to the protocol adopted
by Council in November 2012, but also now includes a review of the Vancouver model. In addition,
recent developments announced by the Federal Industry Minister with respect to changes to the
Industry Canada guidelines on tower consultation are summarized.
Unfortunately, the recent Federal announcement of changes coming to the Industry Canada rules on
cell tower siting lacked specifics. It appears that the intended changes are leaning towards greater
consultation with the public, but may not devolve extra authority to Municipalities. As a consequence,
staff are recommending we wait for the formal changes to the rules before contemplating additional
changes to our protocol.
Therefore only three changes are recommended to the Maple Ridge telecommunications tower siting
protocol based upon our review of the FCM and Vancouver models.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Telecommunications Tower Siting Protocol be amended as follows:
1. Include a $500 review fee for 'high impact' antenna structure applications;
2. The time frame for the District review of a telecommunications tower application be
amended to make it consistent with the FCM model template, namely 60 days to finalize an
application following a public meeting, in an overall review period of 120 days; and
3. Include a deadline of 3 years on tower construction following a successful public
consultation process.
1
1135
DISCUSSION:
Maple Ridge, FCM, Industry Canada, and the City of Vancouver Approaches:
In November of 2012 the District adopted our own Telecommunications Antenna Structures Siting
Protocol.1 This protocol was based upon an attempt to redefine District expectations of the wireless
industry when it comes to proposing or siting antenna structures. Compliance with our protocol is
voluntary, however, we are finding industry support in undertaking requirements.
In February of 2013, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) adopted a model consultation
protocol for communication tower siting.2 The FCM developed their protocol in conjunction with
representatives of municipalities and the wireless industry. Given this protocol `template' has
industry support, it can be expected the industry will voluntarily comply.
Up until this point, staff had been relying on the `default' Industry Canada tower siting protocol. The
public consultation and notification requirements were considered inadequate in the application of
the default protocol, but it was within the legislative purview of the Federal government. Importantly,
towers under 15m in height were exempted from public consultation.
Due to widespread dissatisfaction with the degree and timeliness of local input in the `default'
consultation protocol, the Federal Industry Minister earlier in February announced impending policy
changes to the type of public consultation and the regulations utilized in managing
telecommunications towers. 3 In essence, the Minister noted the major changes that are coming are:
- No exemption for towers under 15m in height;
- Improved notification and consultation requirements; and
- A time limit to construct a tower, following successful consultation.
Although encouraging, there were no details or specifics on when these changes will be
implemented. Staff will be monitoring any further developments in this area once more information
becomes available.
The City of Vancouver has also adopted their own version of an antenna structures siting protocol.4
Vancouver City Council was concerned about the proliferation of antennas, particularly on taller
buildings. Vancouver staff noted that the City already has well developed classical cellular `tower'
structures, but the demand from the industry is for `infill' sites. These `infill' sites are typically lower
powered antenna systems on the face or roof tops of taller buildings.
1 DMR Tower Siting Protocol:
\\m r.corp\docs\CA\01-Admin\0685-Special-Projects\30-Corporate\Wireless\Tower protocol\DMR protocol final.pdf
2 FCM Protocol Template:
\\m r.corp\docs\CA\01-Admin\0685-Specia l-Projects\30-
Corporate\Wireless\Tower protocol\FCM CWTA\FCM Antenna System Siting Protocol.pdf
3 CBC article on the Industry Minister announcement: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wireless-firms-must-consult-with-canadians-on-cell-
tow e rs-m oo re -1.25 24203
4 City of Vancouver antenna siting approach:
\\m r.corp\docs\CA\01-Admin\0685-Special-Projects\30-Corporate\Wireless\Tower protocol\Vanc memo 1.pdf
2
The City has also experimented with such lower powered antenna systems installed on street light
poles in busy areas as a 2 year pilot project. The City of Vancouver has settled on design guidelines,
and fees, for installing cellular antennas onto street light poles. They have initiated a couple of these
type of installations as a pilot project and will be evaluating how it is working in 2 years' time. Again,
their guidelines for this innovative usage deal more with aesthetics.
As noted, for Vancouver, the emphasis has been on how to accommodate antenna systems to
improve wireless service coverage, while minimizing the aesthetic impact. Neighbourhoods have
objected to the visual impacts and the lack of input mostly on design issues. However, there was
minimal concern expressed about the building of "towers". Tellingly, towers are not referenced in
their design considerations. Activity in the telecommunications space was around denser
neighbourhoods and the attachment of antenna structures on the sides and roof tops of high rise
buildings. That activity led to the major emphasis in their design guidelines on how to minimize the
visual impact of antenna installations.
Protocol Comparison:
The question has arisen, how does our protocol compare to others and can we improve it?
Staff have reviewed the FCM protocol template, the City of Vancouver approach and have compared
key areas as noted below. Generally, our protocol parallels the FCM template in most areas. The FCM
model is necessarily vague when it comes to details such as preferred areas where towers should
go, setbacks from different land uses, the radius of notice, any fees to be paid, and the like. They,
understandably, allow the local municipality to `fill -in -the -blanks' depending on local preferences and
conditions.
For our protocol:
- `high' impact towers have the following characteristics:
• Towers of any height within 100m of residences;
• Towers of any height within sensitive areas (ie - environmental, historic, strategic, or
operational);
• Towers greater than 15m height in areas designated as commercial, institutional, or
industrial;
• Increasing the height of an existing tower more that 25%.
- `low' impact towers have the following characteristics:
• Antennas on roof tops;
• Street light poles or parking lots poles;
• On utility towers;
• Towers less than 15m in height that are not "high impact".
We have differing requirements based upon that distinction, such as notification requirements
and public meetings, but we do not have any `processing' fees identified for high impact tower
applications and it is recommended we amend our protocol to include a $500 fee for staff time in
reviewing `high -impact' applications.
3
the District protocol has tight timing on processing submissions, from 10 days for low impact
submissions, to 31 days for high impact. The FCM protocol suggests an overall goal of 120 days.
Staff are recommending amending the time frame in our protocol for review of a
telecommunications tower application consistent with the FCM model template, namely 60 days
to finalize an application following a public meeting, in an overall review period of 120 days.
the District protocol requires that all towers be required to go through a staff review process for
degree of impact. The applicant submits documentation for review by staff and if it is determined
to be 'high impact', irrespective of height, it will need to go through a public consultation exercise.
The FCM model protocol suggests the same if a municipality so requires. The recently announced
Federal changes to Industry Canada rules note that towers under 15m in height will not be
exempt anymore and will have to comply with notice, public meeting, and review requirements
similar to other towers. This now makes our protocol more consistent with the FCM and the new
Industry Canada versions when it gets finalized.
- the District protocol leads to discussions between the proponent of the tower, the affected
neighbourhood in some cases, and District staff, to ensure local considerations are addressed.
This leads to a District letter of support or non-support, as the case may be, back to Industry
Canada who then makes the final determination. The FCM protocol is designed to achieve the
same objectives.
From the table below, it is evident there is a lot that is similar in our respective protocols. The only
divergence and areas of possible change is:
- A longer application and consultation period consistent with FCM recommended standards;
- A $500 processing fee for `high -impact' applications to cover staff time spent;
- Incorporating design review of antennas attached to building surfaces or on top of buildings;
and
- Incorporating a construction deadline following successful public consultation, or the
proponent begins again.
4
FCM Protocol
DMR Protocol
City of Vancouver
Protocol
Purpose and
Objectives
It is a `template' that local government
can customise for local conditions.
To establish procedural standards that
will allow the District to effectively
participate in and influence the
They have noted that
`tower' locations are well -
developed; demand is for
To establish a local land use
placement of telecommunication
`infill' sites, mainly
consultation framework that ensures the
municipality and
members of the public contribute local
knowledge that facilitates and
influences the siting — location,
development and design (including
aesthetics) — of Antenna Systems within
municipal boundaries;
antenna structures proposed within
the District
antennas on buildings.
They developed detailed
design guidelines for
antennas on buildings, and
have developed a pilot
program for small low
powered antenna systems
using street light poles.
Municipal role
To issue a statement of concurrence or
To establish procedural standards that
To establish guidelines and
defined
non -concurrence to the Proponent and
will allow the District to effectively
procedures for industry
to Industry Canada.
participate in and influence the
placement of telecommunication
proponents to minimize the
`impact', mostly visual, on
The statement considers the land use
compatibility of the Antenna System,
the responses of the affected residents
antenna structures proposed within
the District.
neighbourhoods.
And the Proponent's adherence to this
Protocol. The Municipality guides and
facilitates siting process by:
• communicating to Proponents
amenities, sensitivities, planning
priorities and other characteristics of the
The Protocols are also intended to
assist Council, District Staff, Industry
Canada, representatives of the
telecommunications industry, and
members of the public in being aware
of, and understanding the
implementation methods, processes,
4
Building Permit: The issue of building permits is important.
Telecommunication towers are a Federal responsibility. For stand-alone towers, Industry Canada
typically requires engineered drawings of the construction of the tower and an attestation that it is
properly designed.
Presently, in Maple Ridge, towers typically have equipment kiosks or buildings, and electrical works,
required for operation of the tower. It is through these improvements that the District requires a
building permit and inspects the entirety of the works. As well, if the antenna structure is attached to
a building, the District requires a building permit.
5
area;
• developing the design guidelines for
Antenna Systems contained in Section 6
of this Protocol; and
• establishing a community consultation
process, where warranted.
procedures and criteria, used to
achieve this purpose.
FCM Protocol continued
DMR Protocol continued
Vancouver protocol
continued
Municipal role in
public meeting
defined
Not defined
District staff performs three main
functions at a public consultation
meeting. These are:
1. To scrutinize the consultation
process;
2. To clarify the provisions of the
District's Telecommunication
Antenna Structures Siting
Protocols as required;
3. To explain the District's role in
the deployment of
telecommunication antenna
structures
Implied.
Neighbourhood
impact
Designed to review issues
Designed to review issues
Implied.
Design
Characteristics
Included in proponent submission and
public review
Included in proponent submission and
public review
Detailed and extensive, but
apply to roof -tops only.
Residential
setbacks
Suggests they be defined
Defined according to impact
Implied.
Commercial/Indu
strial setbacks
No distinction
Usually defined as higher impact, but
no public consultation meeting
required because of no residential
uses; design review does occur
No reference.
Low Impact
antenna structures
No distinction
Distinction made, no public meeting,
minimal review.
Design guidelines address
this specifically.
Co -lo options
identified
Suggests they be addressed and
documented
Documentation required
No reference
Site investigation
Required
Implied
Required
Notice
obligations
All antenna systems should be noted to
municipality; although it notes limited
exemptions
All antenna systems should be
referred to the District, if only for
info if of low impact
Undefeined
Notice form and
content
Defined
Defined
Undefined
Notice area
To be defined by municipality
Defined
Undefined
Public Meeting
format
Defined
Defined
Undefined
Obligations after
meeting
Post meeting discussions required
Defined
Undefined
Duration of
process
60 days after public meeting, 120 days
overall
31 days after public consultation
meeting
No reference.
Fees
Municipal determination
Not referenced
Referenced depending on
type.
Concurrence
letters
More detail
More general
Implied.
Time Limit to
construct tower
Concurrence is good for 3 years.
No limit.
Silent.
Building Permit
Requirement
Express requirement for buildings,
implied for towers
Silent
Implied for buildings
Building Permit: The issue of building permits is important.
Telecommunication towers are a Federal responsibility. For stand-alone towers, Industry Canada
typically requires engineered drawings of the construction of the tower and an attestation that it is
properly designed.
Presently, in Maple Ridge, towers typically have equipment kiosks or buildings, and electrical works,
required for operation of the tower. It is through these improvements that the District requires a
building permit and inspects the entirety of the works. As well, if the antenna structure is attached to
a building, the District requires a building permit.
5
Both the FCM protocol and the Vancouver approach are silent on building permits for stand-alone
towers. However, the FCM approach has an indirect reference to securing any necessary
"applications or permissions" and paying appropriate fees from relevant Municipal departments.
It is recommended the District continue our current practice of requiring building permits where
there are works associated with operation of the tower. Beyond our current practices noted above,
the District can also require a building permit application following a successful public consultation
exercise for a tower and also as a condition of leasing District lands.
Time Frame: The issue of time frame is important, there has not been enough of a test of our
protocol to determine if the tight time frames of our protocol (eg - 31 days to conclusion from a
public meeting) are sufficient. Early indications are they should be extended to allow staff time to
coordinate and discuss/review with the proponent, and in some cases update Council. Given other
more pressing matters, consideration of such `applications' may not receive the attention in a timely
way that the industry or public expects. The FCM protocol template suggests a window of 60 days to
finalize an application following a public meeting, in an overall review period of 120 days.
Fees: With respect to fees, processing fees was not referenced in our protocol. It was considered
premature to determine the extent of staff time involved. However, preliminary results suggest that
such tower applications may well consume significant staff time and should warrant fees. For all
towers, and antenna structures attached to buildings, building permit review fees will apply.
Design Review: The FCM protocol notes a proponent who is adding to an existing antenna system, or
is proposing to add an antenna system to the top of a building, should provide the municipality with
details around the location, height, and design treatment (eg - screening or stealth treatment) being
utilized. It notes that the treatment should be consistent with the "design preferences" of local
government. This is obviously a concern for larger cities. In Vancouver, for example, their "protocol"
deals almost exclusively with appearances of such antenna systems and they have extensive design
guidelines to address their preferences.
For Maple Ridge, our design protocol does note structures are encouraged to be disguised,
unobtrusive and inconspicuous. However, the limited installation of antennas on roof tops does not
justify extensive design guidelines, and there is no mechanism to have a design review of any that
are proposed. Such installations do require a building permit, and the review at the permit stage
concerns itself with appropriate installation and safety aspects, not design appearance.
Given the discussion above, staff are recommending that:
- the 'high impact' antenna structure applications be charged $500 on the basis of staff time
recovery;
- the time frames for review of applications be amended to be consistent with the FCM template; and
- that a time limit be placed on all new tower construction from a successful application.
If Council approves that change to the protocol staff will review the proposed fee in a year and
monitor any Federal changes for necessary adjustments to our approach.
6
a) Desired Outcome:
Council support for proceeding to amend the Maple Ridge Telecommunications Tower Siting Protocol
as noted above.
b) Strategic Alignment:
Although the final approval authority remains a Federal responsibility, we have our own tower
consultation protocol which we hope will garner more support from Industry Canada for District
concerns. This would be consistent with community development objectives and the desire for local
control of land use issues.
c) Interdepartmental Implications:
The effort and work required to shepherd applications through review and consultation processes
may well become significant. Given more pressing matters, such `applications' may not enjoy
sufficient priority to see them to a timely conclusion. This is justification to ensure a realignment of
our contemplated turn -around times, and those of the FCM template.
Although building permits are required for towers and antenna installations on buildings, the permit
process typically focuses on safety and construction, and not on aesthetics. The District does not
have an appropriate mechanism to undertake design review. If there is a desire to take on a greater
role in this area, staff will need to review our options and return for more discussion.
It was noted above that an application and review fee should be considered to cover staff time.
Additional Fee Bylaw and Procedures Bylaw amendments would need to be made to identify the
application and review process and required fees should this receive Council support.
d) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
A $500 fee for the tower application process and review will be recommended to cover staff time
required for high impact tower applications.
The District will also be able to continue to raise building permit fees for stand-alone towers and
antenna installations attached to buildings.
CONCLUSIONS:
Communication towers and antenna support structures are required for radio communication
services, and are controlled under the Federal Telecommunications Act as administered by Industry
Canada. Under the current regulatory regime, the District is constrained in its ability to influence
matters of Federal control. However, the regulatory landscape is changing and there is more
willingness on the part of the Federal authorities and the wireless industry to acknowledge and
accommodate local concerns in siting and designing telecommunications towers.
Modest changes are proposed to our siting protocol based upon our review of what others have
done. As for design review considerations, staff have guidance in various documents, such as the
FCM material and the City of Vancouver design guidelines, that we can utilize in reviewing the
appropriateness of any tower or antenna siting issues where necessary.
7
Finally, the innovative use of street lights to accommodate cellular antennas is something that staff
will be returning to discuss with Council should there be interest from the industry in developing such
technology here in Maple Ridge. Presently, it is being piloted only in Vancouver, Surrey and
Coquitlam.
"Original signed by John Bastaja"
Prepared by: John Bastaja
Director Corporate Support
"Original signed by Paul Gill"
Approved by: Paul Gill
General Manager, Corporate and Financial Services
"Original signed by David Pollock" for
Approved by: Frank Quinn
General Manager, Public Works and Development Services
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
8
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columbia
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
TO:
FROM:
District of Maple Ridge
His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: April 14, 2014
and Members of Council FILE NO:
Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole
SUBJECT: Tax Rate Bylaws - Maple Ridge Road 13 Diking District and Albion Diking District
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Levies are collected from property owners within the Road 13 and Albion Diking Districts to maintain
the dikes and equipment. Bylaws have been prepared for the collection of these levies in. A 2.2%
Increase is proposed from the rates levied in 2013.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That Maple Ridge Road 13 Diking District Tax Rates Bylaw No. 7079-2014; be given first, second and
third readings and that. Albion Diking District Tax Rates Bylaw No. 7080-2014 be given first, second
and third readings.
DISCUSSION:
The District serves as Interim Trustee of these two diking districts. No funds are allocated in the Capital
Works budget for these dikes. All works must be funded through the diking districts. Provincial grants
can be applied for but these generally require that the recipient pay 33% of all costs. An appraisal was
undertaken in 2013 for the Diking District 13 pump station. The replacement value was determined to
be $798,700 and insurance coverage has been adjusted accordingly.
Providing for pump replacement in the event of a non-insured failure is important for both diking
districts. Neither diking district has sufficient reserves at this time to do so, therefore, a moderate
increase in rates is recommended in order to build up their reserves over multiple years.
"Original signed by Russ Carmichael"
Prepared by: Russ Carmichael
Director of Engineering Operations
"Original signed by Paul Gill"
Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA
General Manager, Corporate & Financial Services
"Original signed by Ceri Marlo" "Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
Prepared by: Ceri Mario. Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Manager of Legislative Services Chief Administrative Officer
1136
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO.7079-2014
A Bylaw for imposing taxes upon lands in Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District
The Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, acting on behalf of the
Trustees for Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District, enacts as follows:
1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District Tax
Rates Bylaw No. 7079-2014".
2. The following rates are hereby imposed and levied for those lands within the
boundaries of Maple Ridge Road 13 Dyking District:
For purposes of dyke maintenance and improvements and equipment repair and
maintenance:
(a) a rate of $0.5003 per $1000 of assessment of land and improvements in all
categories
(b) a rate of $12.00 per acre of land with a minimum charge of $5.00.
3. If any section, subsection, clause or other part of this Bylaw is for any reason held to
be invalid by the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Bylaw.
READ a first time on the day of , 2014.
READ a second time on the day of , 2014.
READ a third time on the day of , 2014.
ADOPTED on the day of , 2014.
PRESIDING MEMBER
CORPORATE OFFICER
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO.7080-2014
A Bylaw for imposing taxes upon lands in the Albion Dyking District
The Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, acting as Receiver for the
Albion Dyking District, enacts as follows:
1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Albion Dyking District Tax Rates Bylaw
No.7080-2014".
2. The following rates are hereby imposed and levied for those lands within the
boundaries of Albion Dyking District:
For purposes of dyke maintenance and improvements and equipment repair and
maintenance:
(a) a rate of $2.5536 per $1000 of assessment of land and improvements in all
categories
3. If any section, subsection, clause or other part of this Bylaw is for any reason held to
be invalid by the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Bylaw.
READ a first time on the day of , 2014.
READ a second time on the day of , 2014.
READ a third time on the day of , 2014.
ADOPTED on the day of , 2014.
PRESIDING MEMBER
CORPORATE OFFICER
410*
MAPLE RIDGE
British Colombia
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: April 14, 2014
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW
SUBJECT: Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS) Funding
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On February 17, Council received a report from staff regarding the uncertainty of funding for the Iron
Horse Youth Safe House (IHYSH) operated by Alouette Home Start Society (AHSS). There was a
recommendation from the Social Planning Advisory Committee (SPAC) that Council write a letter to
request information about the status of current and transitional funding for the Iron Horse Youth
Safe House. In late February the Metro Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness
(RSCH) announced a call for proposals for transitional funding for current Homelessness Partnering
Strategy (HPS) projects. Alouette Home Start Society has successfully applied for transitional
funding allowing both IHYSH and Outreach to remain in operation for a period of six months until
September 30, 2014. In light of the new information supplied to Council at the February 25
meeting, the original recommendation was deferred. The SPAC directed staff to forward a new
recommendation to Council.
At the March 5, 2014 SPAC meeting, the HPS funding for AHSS Outreach and the IHYSH program
was discussed. The discussion centered on three points. The first was the lack of timely
communication about the transitional funding process as well as the short application timeline. The
lack of information caused a great deal of distress for the organization, their staff and clients.
Additionally, once information about the application was sent out the turnaround time was very
short.
The second point discussed by SPAC was in regards to the shift in the HPS funding criteria. The HPS
seeks to address homelessness by working in partnership with communities, provinces and
territories, other federal departments and the private and not-for-profit sectors. HPS funding is
invested in local priorities identified by communities through a comprehensive community planning
process involving a range of local stakeholders. Metro Vancouver is working on a community plan
however, the federal government has redefined the criteria and 65% of the local projects identified
in the plan need to have a `Housing First' focus which means that currently funded local programs
may not receive funding.
The third point discussed was that "Housing First" models require a great deal of services and
supports to ensure success. There are different and varying capacities across the region to supply
these services and supports. The access to housing stock and rental supplements is also
inconsistent across the region. As a result, communities across Metro Vancouver have varying
degrees of capacity to implement Housing First projects.
1151
RECOMMENDATION:
That a letter be written to Service Canada, Member of Parliament Randy Kamp and the Regional
Steering Committee on Homelessness expressing concern over varying degrees of capacity within all
Metro Vancouver communities to implement a Housing First model and that future communications
around the funding process be timely and more comprehensive.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
The Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS) funding from Service Canada funds a number of
programs that address housing and homelessness across Metro Vancouver. A Community Plan
has been developed by the Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness identifying regional
priorities for funding. A number of local programs including the IHYSH and Outreach operated
by AHSS and the Cold Wet Weather (CWW) beds operated by the Caring Place are funded
through HPS. In 2013, the federal government changed the criteria and made "Housing First"
the focus for the HPS funding. Within the regional funding package, 65% of programs funded
must use a "Housing First" model. Many currently funded programs across Metro Vancouver
are not "Housing First" programs and are, therefore, at risk of not being funded. Both the IHYSH
and CWW beds do not meet the criteria and, therefore, will likely not be funded and this will
have a significant impact on our community.
Since its inception, HPS funded projects that addressed priorities outlined in the Community
Plan developed by the RSCH. The funding was directed to unique community-based programs
aimed at preventing and reducing homelessness by providing direct support and funding. For
2011-2014, the Community Plan identified the need for services and housing for: populations
affected by substance misuse or mental health issues, youth, and First Nations. There was no
designated approach other than the need to be community based, engaged in partnerships, and
targeting one of the identified populations. The shift to a "Housing First" model is complex and
the exact criterion for the funding is not yet known.
The `Housing First' approach involves first giving people who are homeless a place to live, and
then providing the necessary supports (e.g. for mental illness) to help them stabilize their lives
and recover as best as possible. It targets individuals who are chronically or episodically
homeless. The HPS funding cannot be used to fund services to support people to maintain
housing and therefore local communities are dependent on existing services typically provided
by the province and the non-profit sector. Not every community in the province has the same
level of service, for example, Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) teams often viewed as
essential to a successful Housing First model, are not available in Maple Ridge and Pitt
Meadows. The lack of appropriate resources could not only put a strain on existing supports
and services but could also jeopardize the success of the Housing First projects in the
community. Across the region, there are also different types of housing stock and access to
rent supplements. Affordable and appropriate housing as well as rent supplements are a key
component of a successful `Housing First' model.
Furthermore, there is also recognition that certain segments of the population of homeless,
including youth 13-17 years of age and seniors, are not well served by the `Housing First'
modality. As noted, the current AHSS safe house model does not fit the criteria for Housing First
funding. Additionally, the Caring Place's Cold Wet Weather beds currently funded by the HPS
2
will no longer be funded. Accordingly, a number of the community services addressing
homelessness will not be available.
In the interim, Metro Vancouver in partnership with the Regional Steering Committee on
Homelessness (RSCH) has announced a Call for Proposals (CFP) for Housing First Readiness &
Capacity Building activities, under the Homelessness Partnering Strategy, to build capacity
among the region's homeless -serving organizations to implement Housing First solutions to
homelessness. The deadline to apply for this funding is May 2. It is likely that an application
from our community will be going forward.
CONCLUSION:
The change of focus for the Homelessness Partnering Strategy funding to "Housing First" will have a
significant impact on our community. The loss of funding for the Iron Horse Youth Safe House and
the Cold Wet Weather beds will decrease access to shelter supports for marginalized populations in
our community. The successful delivery of a Housing First model requires a level of support and
services that not all communities across Metro Vancouver have access to. SPAC is recommending
that Council send a letter outlining these concerns to Service Canada, the local Member of
Parliament and the Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness.
`Original signed by Shawn Matthewson'
Prepared by: Shawn Matthewson, Recreation Coordinator, Social Planning
`Original signed by Sue Wheeler'
Reviewed by: Sue Wheeler, Director Community Services
`Original signed by Kelly Swift'
Approved by: Kelly Swift, General Manager, Community Development
Parks & Recreation Services
`Original signed by Jim Rule'
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
:sm
3